J LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



if 



.Imp 



WW 



opgright Jjft 



I UNITED STATES OP AMERICA, fl 



Christian Baptism: 



ITS 



SUBJECTS AND MODE. 



BY 



S. M. M 



ERRILL, D. D., 



BISHOP OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 




CT NCINNATI: 

HITCHCOCK AND W A L D E N. 
NEW YORK: NELSON & PHILLIPS. 

1876. 



3> N 



k\ 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1876, by 

HITCHCOCK & WALDEN, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



The Library 

of Congress 



WASHINGTON 



PREFATORY NOTE. 



T N preparing the following Discourses, it 
-*- has not been my aim to furnish an ex- 
haustive discussion of the subject, but simply 
to present the substance of the arguments 
which sustain our practice, in a brief, direct 
manner, adapted to popular use rather than 
to the wants of those who wish to master the 
literature of this great discussion. 

I entertain no thought that this volume 
will supersede the elaborate works on Bap- 
tism, which, by reason of their acknowledged 
superiority, have been accepted as standards; 
but I have been impressed that these excel- 
lent books are not generally read, being 
seldom found except in the libraries of the 
preachers, while in many sections our people 



4 PREFATORY NOTE. 

scarcely ever hear the subject from our 
pulpits. There are hundreds of congrega- 
tions in which the younger members never 
heard a sermon on Infant Baptism, and prob- 
ably never more than a very hasty explana- 
tion of our practice concerning the mode. 
The result is that, so far as such communities 
are educated at all on this subject, it is under 
other auspices than our own, and by no 
means friendly to our doctrines. I have 
thought that something of this character, in- 
expensive and unpretentious, ought to be 
offered to those who lack time or disposition 
to study our more critical works; and with 
this view I send out these Discourses, be- 
lieving they will measurably meet a real want, 
and contribute toward the removal of the 
more serious difficulties from the minds of 

earnest seekers after the truth. 

S. M. M. 
St. Paul, Minn., March, 1876. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE, 

I. Spiritual State of Infants, ... 7 

II. The Abrahamic Covenant, ... 38 

III. The Oneness of the Church, ... 73 

IV. Origin of Infant Baptism, . . . 106 
V. Historical Argument, .... 137 

VI. The Nature of the Word Baptize, . 172 

VII. New Testament Baptisms, .... 205 

VIII. Buried by Baptism, 240 

IX. Spirit Baptism, . . . . . . 282 

5 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



Discourse I. 

SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 

" For of such is the kingdom of heaven." — Matt, xix, 14. 

THE subject of baptism is usually con- 
sidered under four heads; namely, the 
obligation, the subjects, the mode, and the 
design. The obligation rests on the commis- 
sion which Christ gave to the apostles to 
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost; and the subsequent 
action of the apostles, which indicates their 
own interpretation of the command. They 
administered baptism with water wherever 
they preached the Gospel and established 
Churches, showing that this ordinance was to 
be perpetuated until the end of the world. 

7 



8 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

I shall therefore assume, in these Discourses, 
that the duty is imposed on the Church to 
continue the practice of baptizing with water; 
and opportunity will be afforded, in consid- 
ering the subjects and mode, to say all that 
needs be said in regard to the design of 
the ordinance — unless, perchance, something 
should be said concerning the false uses of 
the rite, growing out of misconceptions of its 
design. 

I now proceed to consider the question, 
Who are proper subjects of baptism? 

It is well to accept the fact, in the outset, 
that the command to baptize the nations is 
not very discriminating. It did not restrict 
the apostles to males or females, to old or 
young, to Je^vs or Gentiles; and yet there is 
no doubt that the consent of the parties to 
whom the ordinance is given is implied, and 
therefore there must be some limitation that 
will exclude coercion on the one hand, and 
notorious wickedness on the other. In other 
words, the Church is not authorized to force 
the rite on the unwilling, nor is she at liberty 
to extend the privilege to the profane and 
impenitent. With no other limitation now 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 9 

perceivable, the command is universal ; and, 
under its wide sweep of privilege, the nations 
may be placed under the fostering care of the 
Church, for the purpose of instruction and 
edification, according to the doctrine and dis- 
cipline of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Beyond this general commission, we have 
no authoritative guide in determining the 
proper subjects of baptism other than the 
example of the apostles, as recorded in the 
Book of Acts, with the incidental allusions to 
the subject in the inspired Epistles. The 
Church, however, has, with great unanimity, 
and in all ages, accepted the fact that all true 
believers are entitled to this ordinance. We 
have some examples, in the Acts of the 
Apostles, of persons being baptized after they 
had become true believers, and had obtained 
the highest possible evidence of their accept- 
ance before God, in that they had received 
the gift of the Holy Ghost. The baptism of 
Saul of Tarsus, afterward Paul, the apostle to 
Gentiles; and the baptism of the first Gentile 
converts, under the preaching of Peter, in the 
house of Cornelius, are instances of this kind. 
But, since there is no dispute in regard to 



10 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

this class, there is no need of proofs. There 
is, however, another class, concerning whose 
fitness for baptism under the designation of 
ibelievers there has been some question. I 
refer to those whom we call penitents, or 
seekers. They are awakened, and have be- 
come concerned for their salvation; they ac- 
cept the testimony of the Scriptures concern- 
ing Jesus Christ, and believe him to be the 
only Savior of sinners; they have confidence 
in the reality of the experiences of those in 
the Church who declare that they have found 
peace in believing and have obtained in their 
hearts the Spirit of adoption; but they can 
not claim to have entered into the rest of 
faith. Now, the question is, Can such seek- 
ers be rightfully admitted to baptism? We 
answer in the affirmative, and hesitate not to 
say to such, as Peter did to a similar class on 
the day of Pentecost, " Repent, and be bap- 
tized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." In such 
case, baptism is a means of pardon, because 
it is a means of helping the seeker to come 
to Christ, that he may be justified by faith. 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 1 1 

Those penitents, on the day of Pentecost, 
had not yet obtained pardon; but they had 
been "cut to the heart," and had been 
led to inquire, "Men and brethren, what 
shall we do?" They had not yet received 
the gift of the Holy Ghost; but they were 
convinced of sin, and had become real pen- 
itents. In that condition they were instructed 
to be baptized, and had the promise that they 
should receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, 
and that promise was made in such connec- 
tion with the remission of sins as to indicate 
that the gift followed remission. When Paul 
in his journey came to Ephesus, he found 
certain disciples who had not been led into 
the full faith of the Gospel, with its assurance 
of heirship in the divine family, and Paul 
propounded to them the test question, "Have 
ye received the Holy Ghost since ye be- 
lieved ?" When they answered that they had 
not, Paul instructed them more fully; and 
under his teaching they were baptized in the 
name of the Lord Jesus, notwithstanding the 
fact that they had previously been baptized 
with John's baptism. Then, after their bap- 
tism, when Paul had laid his hands upon 



12 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

them, the Holy Ghost came on them. This, 
then, is plainly another example of the bap- 
tism of seekers, or real penitents. 

I come now to speak of another class, 
concerning whose fitness for baptism there 
has been much dispute in the Church, and 
perhaps will be until the dawn of that day 
when all true watchmen on Zion's walls shall 
see eye to eye — I mean young children, or 
infants. In speaking of infants as proper 
subjects of baptism, I am happy in consider- 
ation of the fact that I am simply defending 
the practice of our own Church, and do not 
find it necessary to assail the practice of any 
denomination, or any class of Christian peo- 
ple. There are those who do not see fit to 
baptize little children, and can not be per- 
suaded that duty calls in that direction. The 
practice is odious to them, and they want 
nothing to do with it; the subject, therefore, 
is not theirs, but ours. In advocating the 
practice, we are simply taking care of our 
own ; and, if the elaborate discussion of the 
subject is unpleasant to our neighbors, I have 
only to say that the necessity for it arises 
from the virulence and persistence of the 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 1 3 

attacks made upon our practice by those who 
do not believe in it. 

As a Church, we affirm the practice of in- 
fant baptism, and therefore, at first blush, the 
burden of proof rests upon us. We are 
rightfully called upon to state the reasons for 
our faith, and the ground of our practice. 
This duty we most cheerfully undertake ; and 
yet it is not improper to remark that a point 
will be reached in the discussion when the 
laboring oar will shift hands, and the respon- 
sibility will devolve on the opponents of the 
practice of proving that it is, as they affirm, 
an innovation, brought into the Church with- 
out divine authority, after the apostles were 
dead. That time will come when we shall 
have seen, from the terms of the commission 
to baptize the nations, and from the knowl- 
edge they had of baptism in Jewish practice, 
that the apostles would necessarily understand 
the command as authorizing the baptism of 
infants, unless specifically instructed to the 
contrary; and when we shall see, from the 
record of their practice, and from the history 
of the institution, that they did so understand 
the commission, and practice accordingly. 



14 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

But, for the present, we turn our attention to 
the affirmative arguments which we suppose 
are sufficient to justify the practice. 

And yet another preliminary remark will 
be in place. It is that any duty that is indi- 
rectly taught in the Scriptures, so that the 
knowledge of it is gained by legitimate infer- 
ence or rational deduction, is just as binding 
as if presented in positive precept. All 
Christians acknowledge the principle con- 
tained in this statement, and practice duties, 
the knowledge of which is obtained in this 
way. For instance, there is no positive pre- 
cept or injunction directing that women be 
admitted to the Lord's-supper; and yet there 
are such facts stated, and such principles 
inculcated, as to leave no doubt in the rea- 
soning mind that the practice of admitting 
them is lawful. There is no positive com- 
mand in the Scriptures for observing the first 
day of the week, instead of the seventh, as 
the day of rest and worship ; and yet we find 
ample authority for this in the facts and prin- 
ciples laid down, so that, although the con- 
clusion is reached by inference, it is sound 
and satisfactory. The immediate design of 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 1 5 

the Christian revelation is to instruct us in 
the way of salvation, and to furnish the world 
with germs of thought to be nourished with 
divine grace, and developed into the strength 
and beauty of the Christian life. It is there- 
fore to be expected that much of the light 
the Scriptures shed upon the moral condition 
and Church relations of little children will 
come to us incidentally, and require the ex- 
ercise of reason and the observance of just 
laws of interpretation. I shall therefore not 
hesitate to assume that rational deductions 
from the facts and principles found in the 
Scriptures are to be respected to the full ex- 
tent of their legitimacy, and to be feared or 
discredited only by those who find their dog- 
mas better served by National deductions. 

What, then., is the moral status, or the 
spiritual state, of little children? Are they 
eligible to any Church privilege or religious 
ordinance? Has God ever, by word or act, 
spoken on this subject, so that his voice can 
be interpreted? And what are the principles 
involved in infant baptism? Do these prin- 
ciples indicate any thing as to the propriety 
or impropriety of this practice ? These 



1 6 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

questions open a wide field, much wider than 
I shall be able, in my prescribed limits, thor- 
oughly to explore; and yet I hope to make 
such incursions, and sufficiently careful ob- 
servations, as to mark out the pathway to 
right conclusions. And I feel other restraints 
than those imposed by limits as to time. 
There are elaborate investigations of a critical 
character sometimes indulged in connection 
with this subject, investigations suitable to 
the stately volume; but my remarks must be 
less critical, because they must be adapted to 
the pulpit, and hence to the popular assem- 
bly, rather than to the private study of the 
student. I desire so to present the subject 
that the ordinary reader of the Scriptures can 
comprehend the argument, and verify the po- 
sitions taken. 

Let us, then, look at the New Testament 
teaching in regard to the spiritual state of 
little children, and ascertain, from their rela- 
tion to Christ and to the kingdom of heaven, 
whether they have any rights which the 
Church dares respect. If they are left with- 
out the covenant of grace, and have no inter- 
est in the blood of Christ, and no standing in 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 1 7 

the family of God; and if their relation to 
the Church is ignored, and the duty of the 
Church toward them is undefined, we ought 
to know the fact, however sad and dismal 
the thought, and however chilling to the best 
feeling of our hearts such a discovery must 
inevitably be. There is no motive for self- 
deception here, and no comfort in building 
upon an insufficient foundation. But, breth- 
ren, the study of the New Testament on this 
subject leaves no sting behind. All its utter- 
ances, however brief, are singularly compre- 
hensive, and full of comfort. "It is not the 
will of your Father in heaven that one of 
these little ones should perish." 

Infants owe their existence to Christ and his 
redemption. I mean by this more than that 
he is the Creator of all things and the giver 
of life, as in his divine nature he is God over 
all. I disallow the assumption, that, if no 
redemption had been provided, the posterity 
of Adam would have lived, suffered, and died 
in sin, and claim that under a rigorous ad- 
ministration of the law, in the absence of 
redeeming grace, the penalty of the first 
transgression would have cut off the first 



1 8 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

offenders without offspring; so that, as Mr. 
Fletcher says, "the only conscious sinners 
would have been the only conscious suffer- 
ers." Why was it that that penalty was not 
inflicted to the letter of the law, and to the 
extent of unbending justice? How came it 
that the execution was stayed, the penalty 
suspended, the new probation instituted, and 
that the guilty pair were spared to propagate 
their species under the new terms of life? 
It was simply because mercy intervened, 
and the promised redemption intercepted the 
stroke of justice, and rescued the living sin- 
ners from their dreaded doom, and their pos- 
terity from the everlasting reign of seminal 
death. 

Had there been no redemption, the devel- 
opment of creation in the positive existence 
of the race had not occurred; and then, of 
course, there had been no infants on earth. 
The fact that they exist is proof that Christ 
died for them, and that they are included in 
the covenant of redemption. He who died 
for the race died for every child of Adam. 
We thus start out in the contemplation of 
infantile life with the assurance that it is the 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 1 9 

purchase of the Redeemer's blood, and has 
some place in the economy of grace. 

Infants are subjects of the kingdom of God. 
Of this significant fact we have the most pos- 
itive proof. "And they brought unto him 
also infants, that he would touch them; but 
when his disciples saw it they rebuked them. 
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, 
Suffer little children to come unto me, and 
forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom 
of God." This declaration settles forever the 
fact that infants belong to the kingdom of 
heaven, and the further fact that their relation 
to the kingdom entitles them to be known 
and acknowledged by the disciples of Christ 
as sustaining so important a relation to him. 
The objectors to infant baptism have some- 
times raised a question here as to whether 
Christ really intended to say that infants them- 
selves are "of the kingdom," or whether the 
word "such" in his statement did not mean 
that only those who humble themselves and 
become like little children are subjects of the 
kingdom. The question is scarcely worthy of 
mention, as it does not reach the dignity of 
criticism; and yet to pass it by might seem 



20 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

like overlooking the only show of opposition 
this part of our argument has encountered. 
The fact that the Savior assigned member- 
ship in the kingdom of God as the reason for 
admitting their approach to him, and for his 
personal treatment of them, proves beyond 
all reasonable doubt that he meant to affirm, 
in the most literal manner, that they them- 
selves belong to that kingdom. To deny this 
throws a shade of uncertainty over all his 
language and conduct, and involves serious 
absurdities. Why should he tell the people 
that they must be like little children in order 
to enter the kingdom, if the little children 
were not themselves in the kingdom? How 
could they serve his purpose as models of fit- 
ness for a relation which they themselves did 
not possess? But a few quotations will show 
the folly of this attempt to cast doubt upon 
the meaning of the language before us. Mat- 
thew ix, 8: "But when the multitudes saw 
it, they marvelled, and glorified God, who 
had given such power unto men." Did not 
this mean the identical power they had seen 
displayed, and all like it? Mark ii, 2: "And 
what wisdom is this which is given unto him, 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 21 

that even such mighty works are wrought by 
his hands?" Does this word "such" exclude 
the mighty works which the people had just 
seen? Mark iv, 33: "And with many such 
parables spake he the word unto them." 
Does not this mean the very parables here 
recorded, as well as others? Luke xiii, 2: 
"Suppose ye that these Galileans were sin- 
ners above all the Galileans, because they 
suffered such things?" What things? Un- 
questionably the very thing specified, as well 
as others of like character. To multiply quo- 
tations would be superfluous. The expres- 
sion means that infants, and all who resemble 
them in moral dispositions, compose the king- 
dom of God. The meaning and significance 
of this membership in the kingdom will appear 
in another place; and yet it may be w r ell to 
remark that the phrase "the kingdom of God," 
and the other phrase found in parallel pas- 
sages, "the kingdom of heaven," mean the 
kingdom of God's grace on earth, and also 
his visible kingdom or Church, indicating in 
the clearest manner that the subjects of his 
grace are entitled to recognition as members of 
his Church, according to their age and ability. 



22 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Infants are in a state of gracious acceptance 
before God. This is implied in what has been 
said, but deserves a fuller elucidation. They 
are not only included in the covenant of re- 
demption, without which they could not have 
been born, but they are, by virtue of their 
relation to Christ and their interest in his 
atoning death, so affected by it as to have 
their existence begun in entire exemption 
from condemnation on account of their rela- 
tion to Adam, or the corruption of nature 
inherited from him. I do not forget, at this 
point, that the moral condition of infants has 
been the subject of warm discussion among 
those who agree to their baptism, as well as 
with those who deny them this rite ; nor do I 
expect, in my hasty notice of the point, to 
answer all the queries that arise touching the 
methods of grace in working salvation for the 
little ones; but I hope to reach firm footing 
for all the purposes of the present argument. 

It is necessary, in order to a clear under- 
standing of the subject, to consider the fact 
that all infants sustain a twofold relation — the 
natural relation to Adam, from whom they 
are descended ; and the spiritual relation to 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 23 

Christ, by whom they are redeemed. From 
Adam they inherit the fallen, sinful nature, 
with all its tendencies to evil ; and this cor- 
ruption of nature is not a mere figure of 
speech. The tremendous fact of native de- 
pravity stares us in the face, not only when 
w T e look into the Bible, but when we study 
the impulses and passions of our own hearts, 
and when we look out upon the manifesta- 
tions of human nature in every department 
of human life. The mystery that puzzles our 
profoundest thought is the fact that this na- 
tive tendency to sin remains in the heart 
during the innocency of childhood, notwith- 
standing the unquestionable assurance given 
us that these little ones are the objects of the 
Savior's solicitude, and subjects of his king- 
dom, and heirs of his spiritual benediction. 
We are restrained by the overwhelming testi- 
monies in the case from accepting any state- 
ment of gracious influence upon them that 
destroys or eradicates from their being the 
germs of inherited evil. Their Adamic nature 
remains intact. They are born after the flesh, 
and embryo carnal affections are born within 
them. In all we say of their gracious state, 



24 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

we dare not imply aught against the fact that 
all men are fallen in Adam ; but the mitigat- 
ing thought is that this fall does not bring 
personal guilt, and that the coetaneous rela- 
tion to Christ brings a germ of spiritual life, 
such as can coexist in the heart with the 
primal bias to evil. That such a state of 
coincident occupancy is possible is illustrated 
in the experience of the justified man; for 
within him there must be the beginnings of 
spiritual life; and yet the native tendency to 
evil is not eradicated, but remains and mani- 
fests itself in the strivings of the flesh against 
the spirit. What, then, is the true spiritual 
state of infants, resultant from the twofold re- 
lation which we have been considering? It 
is, in my judgment, not wise or proper to 
affirm infant regeneration ; for we know of no 
spiritual process that takes place in the infant 
soul that answers to the act of regeneration 
as taught in the Scriptures; and yet they are 
in the kingdom, and so eminently qualified 
for the kingdom that they are held up as 
models; so that, unless adults become "like" 
them, they can not enter the kingdom. We 
are therefore led to conclude, that, without 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 25 

the formal process of regeneration, and with- 
out any appreciable exercise of active spiritual 
agency, they are, "by virtue of the uncondi- 
tional benefits of the atonement, " placed in 
such a state of gracious acceptance as answers 
to the gracious state reached by adults only 
through justifying faith. We can not reckon 
their spiritual condition lower than this and 
leave them in the kingdom; nor can we as- 
sign to them a more positive spiritual life 
without supposing a direct action of the Spirit 
within them that would destroy the carnal 
affection, which is not destroyed. Here, then, 
we leave them, and ask whether the Scrip- 
tures warrant this representation. 

We read in Matthew xviii, 1-3: "At the 
same time came the disciples unto Jesus, say- 
ing, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of 
heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto 
him, and set him in the midst of them, and 
said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be 
converted, and become as little children, ye 
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." 
On every occasion when Christ alluded to 
"little children," he connected them with 
the kingdom of heaven; and by repetition 



26 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

he sought to impress the minds of his disci- 
ples favorably with regard to their spiritual 
standing. But here we notice not merely the 
relation of the children to the kingdom, but 
the two significant statements in regard to 
adults. The first is, that they must "become 
like little children/' This "likeness" may 
imply a resemblance in disposition, in docil- 
ity, or teachableness; but it is most natural 
to interpret it of that in the children that fits 
them for the kingdom; and this takes us 
beyond their natural dispositions, their hu- 
mility and teachableness, to their gracious 
state, as affected by their spiritual relation to 
Christ. The second statement in regard to 
adults confirms this view ; for it is that, in 
order to become "like little children," they 
must be "converted." Now, that "likeness" 
which results from conversion is a spiritual 
likeness, and conversion does introduce the 
converted person into a spiritual state which 
is easily distinguished from the process of 
conversion; and that spiritual state is one of 
gracious acceptance with God, and corre- 
sponds essentially with the gracious state of 
infants. Here is a real "likeness," and one 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 27 

based on something immediately connected 
with membership in the kingdom of heaven. 
We therefore do no violence to the passage 
by paraphrasing it on this wise: "Except ye 
who have committed actual sins, and have 
fallen under condemnation, shall now repent 
and be converted, and thereby be delivered 
from the reigning pow r er of sin, and be re- 
stored to a state of gracious acceptance, such 
as was yours in childhood, before the com- 
mission of sin, and such as belongs to all 
little children, ye can not enter into the king- 
dom of heaven." If this is the sense of the 
Savior's words, and there is certainly no good 
ground for doubting it, all I have said of the 
gracious state of "little children" is fully 
justified. They are not only in the king- 
dom, but they are in the moral condition 
into which adults enter by conversion. With- 
out the process of regeneration — a term which 
applies only to adults — infants are in a state 
of salvation, that corresponds, as nearly as 
we can trace resemblances in such a case, 
with the state of salvation enjoyed by the 
justified believer in Christ. Then, if they 
are capable of any religious rite at all, as we 



28 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

shall see they are, they are just as fit for 
baptism as they are for the kingdom of 
heaven. 

Infants are classed zvith believers > and are to 
be treated as believers. There are but two 
kingdoms in the universe that we know any 
thing about. The one is the kingdom of 
God, and the other is the kingdom of the 
devil. We have seen to which of these 
kingdoms the little ones belong. Happy for 
us that on this point we are not left to con- 
jecture. There are also two classes into 
which the whole human family may be di- 
vided, in the light of the Scriptures; namely, 
believers and unbelievers. In making this 
division, we might not be able to make the 
assignments correctly, in every case ; but He 
who sees the heart, and discerns the "spirit 
of faith" where we could not see it, can draw 
the dividing line with unerring exactness. 
But there are some very marked characters 
whom we can classify according to the infal- 
lible judgment of the Word of God. The 
question I wish here to propound is, On 
which side of the line that separates between 
believers and unbelievers shall we place the 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 



2 9 



children ? Shall we classify them with be- 
lievers or unbelievers? Before deciding this 
question, it should be remarked, further, that 
these two classes, if the Gospel commission 
were fully carried out, might be distinguished 
as the baptized and unbaptized, as the saved 
and unsaved. The subjects of salvation, in 
the contemplation of the Scriptures, consist 
of baptized believers; and the unsaved are 
the unbaptized unbelievers. Of course, this 
commission is not perfectly carried out — so 
that some of the saved are not formally bap- 
tized, and some of the baptized are not saved. 
The lines of the visible Church do not quad- 
rate perfectly with those of the kingdom of 
God. But I am now speaking of the perfect 
classification, as it would be under the per- 
fect application of the Gospel commission to 
the entire race. Where, then, should we place 
the children? I doubt not that every heart 
responds, quite regardless of creeds, The little 
ones belong to the company of believers! 
yes, of baptized believers! We dare not 
class them with the unbaptized unbelievers. 
They are not unbelievers. They can not 
disbelieve, and, until they become unbeliev- 



30 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

ers, they have all the spiritual relation to 
Christ and his kingdom that faith implies, 
and which to the adult is secured only by 
faith. We therefore, when met by the ob- 
jector with the announcement that they can 
not believe, and therefore must not be treated 
as believers, retort, with all emphasis, " Nay y 
sir; they can not disbelieve." 

And that they are properly classed with 
believers, and accounted believers, and treated 
as believers in the Church of God, is evident 
from the incident, a part of which has been 
cited. I read the whole paragraph, Matthew 
xviii, 1-6: "At the same time came the dis- 
ciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest 
in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called 
a little child unto him, and set him in the 
midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto 
you, Except ye be converted, and become as 
little children, ye shall not enter into the 
kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore 
shall humble himself as this little child, the 
same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 
And whoso shall receive one such little child 
in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall 
offend one of these little ones which believe 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 3 I 

in me, it were better for him that a millstone 
were hanged about his neck, and that he 
were drowned in the depth of the sea." 

The only way to modify the meaning I 
have given this passage is to show r that the 
"little child" which was set in the midst of 
the disciples was not a little child, in the 
sense of being an infant, or under the years 
of responsible moral action. Indeed, the 
effort has been made to this end, some sup- 
posing this necessary because of the descrip- 
tion in the latter part of the passage, "One 
of these little ones which believe in me." 
But there is no doubt that the "little child," 
and the "little ones which believe," are of 
the same class, and that the little child in the 
midst of the disciples represented the whole 
class. In other words, there is no difference 
as to rank between the one in the presence 
of the disciples and the ones that are said to 
believe. Then, was the little child called and 
set in their midst a young child or infant? or 
was it a youth, capable of believing and being 
converted? If the latter, the whole force of 
the lesson given to the disciples is lost, and 
the illustration is one the pertinency of which 



32 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

it is difficult to understand. Indeed, the entire 
incident becomes misleading, unless the little 
child was an infant, for the reason that in an- 
other place we have the same illustration in 
regard to entering into the kingdom, when 
the little children present, and pointed to as 
models of fitness, are distinctly called infants. 
I refer to Luke xviii, 15-17: "And they 
brought unto him also infants, that he would 
touch them; but when his disciples saw it, 
they rebuked them. But Jesus called them 
unto him, and said, Suffer little children to 
come unto me, and forbid them not : for of 
such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say 
unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the 
kingdom of God as a little child shall in no 
wise enter therein." Here the little children 
are infants, brought by their parents ; and 
yet he called them to him, as in the case of 
the little child in the other instance. And 
then, after pronouncing them subjects of the 
kingdom of God, he tells those present that 
they can only receive the kingdom, or enter 
into it, by becoming like these little children. 
The illustration is the same, and the lesson is 
the same, in both instances ; and therefore the 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 33 

little children are of the same class, while in 
one instance there can be no doubt that they 
were infants. And the word rendered ''little 
child," in the passage in question, where the 
little ones that believe in Christ are men- 
tioned, is the same that is used with reference 
to the infant Jesus, in every instance, until 
after his return from Egypt. It occurs where 
the Savior speaks of "babes;" and here, in 
the passage just cited, it is used of the same 
that are called infants. They are infants — 
brephos — in the beginning of the passage, 
where they are brought to Jesus; and imme- 
diately, when they are held up as models of 
fitness for the kingdom, they are "little chil- 
dren" — the same class as the "little ones 
that believe." Now, from all this, it is ap- 
parent that the assumption that the little 
child, which Jesus set in the midst of the 
disciples, was a youth old enough to be con- 
verted, is at variance with all the facts, and 
utterly inadmissible. And the interpretation 
which claims that the Savior had ceased to 
speak of the little child before them, and of 
little ones of that class, and had begun to 
speak of those who had become like them by 

3 



34 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

conversion, and had only the converted adults 
in mind, when he mentioned " these little 
ones which believe in me," is purely fanciful, 
without authority, and unnecessary .to meet 
any difficulty in the way of the most natural 
import of the words. Such a transition of 
thought seems to me to be out of the ques- 
tion. In one sentence it is "this little child ;" 
in the next, it is "one such little child;" and 
in the next, it is "one of these little ones 
which believe in me." The only real neces- 
sity in the case is to find a good, proper 
sense, in which these "little ones" can be 
said to "believe." I submit that we have 
done this. They could not believe as do 
adults; but they were in possession of the 
spiritual blessings, and of the relation to 
Christ, which adults only receive by believ- 
ing; and in view of their spiritual union with 
himself, and of their being in the state of 
salvation which believers have by faith, the 
Savior, by an easy figure of speech, called 
them believers, in order to class them with 
believers, and to indicate their fitness to be 
treated as believers. This is, therefore, their 
proper status in the Church; and in claiming 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 35 

for them the relation, the moral standing, and 
the treatment of believers, we are not going 
beyond the record. Nothing but the guilt 
of unbelief can cut them off from this rela- 
tion; and the solemn warning against "of- 
fending" them, or ensnaring them so as to 
cause them to offend, is a most significant 
intimation of the importance attaching to 
their proper treatment. 

But if they are to be treated as believers, 
and if they are to be "received in the name 
of Christ," I ask, How is this to be done, if 
not by putting upon them the badge of dis- 
cipleship, the token of recognition as believ- 
ers, which is the only rite adapted to their 
condition in life — Christian baptism? 

I find in them all that baptism means, all 
its spiritual import implies; and I find no 
principle involved in baptism that renders it 
inapplicable to them. They are in the king- 
dom, in Christ, in his body, the Church; 
they are in a gracious state of acceptance, 
and are therefore fit for the ordinance. And 
the ordinance consists of dedication to God, 
a covenant relation to God, and the sign of 
the inward grace. Infants, under the Old 



36 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Testament, were accounted capable of this, 
and entitled to it ; for they were placed in the 
covenant, were dedicated to God, and received 
the outward rite which was the token of God's 
covenant; and all this by direct command of 
God. We are then brought face to face with 
parental obligation, as well as with the duty 
of the Church, with reference to the little 
children. If parents were required under the 
Old Testament to dedicate their offspring to 
God, and if the change of dispensation en- 
larged the privileges of the pious, but did 
not lower the standard of moral obligation, or 
excuse from any social duty, there is nothing 
more reasonable than to expect in the Church 
under the Gospel some provision for the for- 
mal consecration of the children, and their 
enrollment in covenant bonds with all that 
make up the kingdom of God. But if that 
provision is not found in connection with the 
unrestricted commission to disciple the na- 
tions, baptizing them, it does not exist, and 
one of the most precious privileges and sol- 
emn duties belonging to parents under the 
Old Testament is strangely eliminated from 
the New Testament. I can not believe this 



SPIRITUAL STATE OF INFANTS. 37 

has been done. It is contrary to the genius 
of the Gospel, and opposed to all right inter- 
pretations of the actions of Christ toward 
childhood, and deprives his comprehensive 
utterances in regard to the little children, and 
their relation to the kingdom of heaven, of 
their plainest meaning. And if this strange 
excision of the children has taken place, it 
has been done without notice or intimation, 
and without the assignment of any reason, as 
well as in the face of these significant sayings, 
which rather imply the extension of their 
privileges than their deprivation of those that 
belonged to them under the former dispen- 
sation. 



38 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



Discourse II. 

THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children." — 
Acts ii, 39. 

IN this language we find such an allusion 
to the Abrahamic covenant, and to the 
children of those in the covenant, as im- 
plies necessarily, under the circumstances, 
the proper covenant standing of the little 
ones, and recognizes their right to baptism. 
The word children sometimes relates to pos- 
terity in general, without regard to the spe- 
cial condition of infancy; but here there is 
such a present application of the language to 
the state of things in existence that the most 
natural and easy interpretation is that which 
includes the little ones of the household, 
with the parents, as heirs of the promise. 

The language was addressed to Jews, who 
were accustomed to look upon their infant 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 39 

children as belonging to the covenant, and 
were familiar with infant Church membership 
and infant baptism — the latter as practiced in 
the case of proselytes. It refers to the prom- 
ise contained in the covenant with Abraham, 
in which covenant God engages to be the 
God of Abraham and his seed, meaning not 
only his descendants in general, but his infant 
offspring in particular, and in which he recog- 
nizes infant Church membership, fixing upon 
them the token of the covenant. The words 
"your children" correspond to "thy seed" 
in the original promise; and "thy seed" is 
shown to include infants by the command to 
circumcise the child of eight days. The con- 
nection between "thy seed" in the original 
promise, and the command to circumcise ev- 
ery man-child, shows that God intended to 
recognize the infant offspring of Abraham as 
in covenant with himself; and the relation 
between baptism and "your children" in this 
passage is so similar to that between "thy 
seed" and the command enjoining circumcis- 
ion in the institution of the covenant that 
we can not avoid the conclusion that God 
intended both "you and your children" to 



40 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

receive the same token of recognition. The 
language of Peter must be explained in har- 
mony with the well-known signification of 
similar language in the covenant to which he 
referred. Then, as infant offspring were un- 
questionably embraced in "the promise" as 
first made to Abraham, they must also be 
included in this application of "the promise" 
made by Peter. The expression "thy seed" 
related to infants when the promise was made; 
and the words of Peter, "your children," can 
not, by any fairness of interpretation, be made 
to mean any thing different. Neither one of 
these expressions excludes from the promise 
either grown posterity or infant children. 

Some have claimed that the "promise" 
alluded to was only the prophecy of Joel, 
which was so remarkably fulfilled in the gift 
of the Holy Spirit; but that prophecy is in 
another place distinctly cited, while it is the 
invariable custom of the apostles to speak of 
the covenant with Abraham as "the promise," 
by way of distinction. In the following chap- 
ter there is recorded a similar discourse, de- 
livered by this same Peter on an occasion of 
similar import, in which he distinctly specifies 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 41 

the covenant of Abraham as containing "the 
promise' ' which he quotes: "Ye are the chil- 
dren of the prophets, and of the covenant 
which God made with our fathers, saying 
unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the 
kindreds of the earth be blessed.' ' This is 
the covenant which contains the promise "to 
you and to your children;" and I propose a 
careful analysis of its provisions and scope, 
intending to develop from its spirituality and 
permanency an argument for infant baptism 
which can not be rejected without the most 
flagrant violation of the soundest principles 
of Scriptural exegesis. 

God's method of saving sinners is the 
same in all ages. He never adopted but 
the one plan of redemption, and he will 
never exchange that for another. Through 
all the changes of the outward structure of 
the Church, and the modifications of external 
ceremonials that have marked the passing of 
the dispensations, that one plan has been 
kept in view, while its progressive develop- 
ment moved steadily onward to its culmi- 
nation in the coming and official work of 
the Messiah, "the seed of the woman" and 



42 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

the "seed of Abraham/ ' This plan was 
darkly shadowed to Adam, to Enoch, and 
to Noah, and more clearly intimated to 
Abraham. With this patriarch, God estab- 
lished in visible form his covenant, which 
was to be the charter of the Church to the 
end of time, and in which he honored his 
servant by constituting him the father of 
many nations, and making him the reposi- 
tory of promises to be fulfilled only through 
the Messiah and under his spiritual dominion. 
This covenant was therefore distinguished as 
the " covenant of promise." It contained a 
variety of stipulations, which were not all re- 
vealed at once, but were declared to Abra- 
ham from time to time, perhaps as his 
faith was able to receive and appreciate the 
unfolding of the divine purpose. These rev- 
elations, which entered into the covenant 
with Abraham, extended through a series of 
years, so that we must collate a number 
of passages in order to gain a comprehensive 
view of its .far-reaching provisions. I there- 
fore present the following: 

"Now the Lord said unto Abram, Get 
thee out of thy country, and from thy kin- 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 43 

dred, and from thy father's house, unto a 
land that I will show thee; and I will make 
thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and 
make thy name great; and thou shalt be a 
blessing; and I will bless them that bless 
thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in 
thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.' ' 
(Genesis xii, 1-3.) "And the Lord said unto 
Abram, after that Lot was separated from 
him: Lift up now thine eyes, and look 
from the place where thou art, northward 
and southward, and eastward and westward; 
for all the land which thou seest, to thee will 
I give it, and to thy seed forever. And I 
will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; 
so that if a man can number the dust of the 
earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. " 
(Genesis xiii, 14-16.) I would also refer to 
the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, without read- 
ing it here. It contains a reiteration of the 
promise of a numerous seed, an account of 
Abram's justification, together with a specific 
declaration respecting the Egyptian bond- 
age and deliverance. We next come to the 
fuller revelation and more formal establish- 
ment of this covenant, in the seventeenth 



44 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

chapter of Genesis: "And when Abram was 
ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared 
to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Al- 
mighty God; walk before me, and be thou 
perfect. And I will make my covenant be- 
tween me and thee, and will multiply thee 
exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face; 
and God talked with him, saying, As for me, 
behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou 
shalt be a father of many nations. Neither 
shall thy name any more be called Abram; 
but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father 
of many nations have I made thee. And I 
will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will 
make nations of thee; and kings shall come 
out of thee. And I will establish my cove- 
nant between me and thee, and thy seed after 
thee, in their generations, for an everlasting 
covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy 
seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, 
and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein 
thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, 
for an everlasting possession; and I will be 
their God. And God said unto Abraham, 
Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou 
and thy seed after thee, in their generations. 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 45 

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep be- 
tween me and you, and thy seed after thee. 
Every man-child among you shall be circum- 
cised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of 
your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the 
covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is 
eight days old shall be circumcised among you, 
every man-child in your generations, he that 
is born in the house, or bought with money of 
any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He 
that is born in thy house, and he that is 
bought with thy money, must needs be cir- 
cumcised; and my covenant shall be in your 
flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the 
uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his 
foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be 
cut off from his people ; he hath broken my 
covenant." (Genesis xvii, 1-14.) 

Then, after the trial of Abraham's faith, 
as recorded in the twenty-second chapter, we 
find this same covenant renewed, in the fol- 
lowing words: "And the angel of the Lord 
called unto Abraham out of heaven the sec- 
ond time, and said, By myself have I sworn, 
saith the Lord, for because thou hast done 
this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, 



46 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

thine only son; that in blessing I will bless 
thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy 
seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the 
sand which is upon the sea-shore ; and thy seed 
shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in 
thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." 
(Genesis xxii, 15-18.) This same covenant 
was renewed with Isaac, Genesis xxvi, 3-4; 
and also with Jacob, Genesis xxviii, 10-15. 

There are three points to which we must 
direct our attention, in order to understand 
the provisions of this covenant, and to see its 
bearing on the subject before us, namely : 
1. Its oneness, as distinguished from all other 
covenants. 2. Its twofold character, or its 
literal and spiritual import, as related to the 
literal and spiritual seed of Abraham. 3. The 
perpetuity and development of its spiritual 
part under the Gospel dispensation. 

The first point is, God made but one cove- 
nant with Abraham. That one covenant 
contained several promises, as any covenant 
may contain numerous stipulations, but each 
promise was not a distinct covenant. If the 
several distinct promises are to be taken as 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 47 

so many covenants, then were there several 
distinct covenants made with Abraham which 
have no sign or token, and which were never 
ratified in covenant form. The Scriptures 
speak familiarly of the covenant with Abra- 
ham, as distinct from all other covenants ; but 
they never speak in the plural, as if there 
were more than one ; nor do they specify one 
so as to imply that there were others. True, 
the sacred writers have spoken, in a few in- 
stances, of ''the covenants/' and of "the two 
covenants; but this language has reference 
to the covenant made with Moses, in connec- 
tion with that with Abraham. They never 
speak of two covenants with Abraham. 

That the covenant with Abraham and that 
made with Moses are not the same, is evident 
from several considerations: 

1. They were instituted at different times. 
This fact would not of itself prove the point 
in hand, since the same covenant was estab- 
lished at one time with Abraham, was re- 
newed and confirmed to him at different 
times, and was subsequently renewed and 
established with Isaac and Jacob; yet we find 
the difference in the dates of the two cov- 



48 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

enants mentioned by the apostle Paul, as 
something of importance, when he was show- 
ing the difference between the covenant with 
Abraham and the ceremonial law; so that the 
difference in dates, in connection with other 
facts, proves a real difference in the identity 
of the covenants. One was given four hun- 
dred and thirty years before the other; hence 
they are not identical. If the covenant with 
Moses were the same that had been previ- 
ously made with Abraham, the date of its 
establishment with Moses would not have 
been the date of its origin; but the Scrip- 
tures speak of the Mosaic covenant, not as 
the renewal of another covenant dating back 
to the days of Abraham, but as having its 
origin in the day when God took the children 
of Israel by the hand to lead them out of the 
land of Egypt. (See Jeremiah xxxi, 32, and 
Hebrews viii, 9.) 

2. These covenants are distinguished by 
different names. That with Moses is called 
"the law," while that with Abraham is de- 
nominated "the promise." This is particu- 
larly the case in the Epistle to the Galatians, 
where the difference in the nature of the two 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 49 

covenants is discussed, and the apostle uses 
this distinction in justification of his course 
in offering the "blessing of Abraham'' to the 
Gentiles, through Jesus Christ. In explaining 
"the promise," so as to apply to Gentiles, 
who by accepting the Gospel are constituted 
"the seed of Abraham," he anticipated the 
objection the Jew might make, to the effect 
that this extension of privilege under the 
Abrahamic covenant would array the law in 
antagonism with the promise, since the law, 
or the covenant with Moses, belonged only 
to the Jews; and in recognition of this objec- 
tion, and for the purpose of answering it, he 
asked, "Is the law against the promise?" 
He showed that it was not, and that it could 
not restrict the promise from reaching out 
beyond the limits of the law, even unto all 
the seed. 

3. The Mosaic covenant was peculiar to 
the Jewish nation, while the Abrahamic cov- 
enant was designed for "all nations" — for 
"all the kindreds of the earth." The pre- 
cepts, promises, and particularly the ritualistic 
services of the Mosaic covenant, look to the 
distinct nationality of the Israelites; but the 
4 



50 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

wording of the Abrahamic covenant shows 
its adaptation to all the families of the earth. 
It was clearly intended to include the Gen- 
tiles in its provisions, and to bring all nations 
upon an equality as respects their rights to 
the blessings of the Messiah and the priv- 
ileges of the Church. Hence, in speaking 
of its full development in the form of the 
Gospel institution, the apostle says, " Christ 
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
that the blessing of Abraham might come on 
the Gentiles. " 

4. That the Mosaic and Abrahamic cov- 
enants are not identical, is seen in the fact 
that one was "added" to the other, for a 
limited time and a definite purpose. The 
apostle, having shown that the law, which is 
the covenant with Moses, could not give 
life — could not pardon, justify, or save the 
sinner — anticipated the objection that would 
naturally arise, and himself asked the ques- 
tion, " Wherefore, then, serveth the law?'" 
If it could not justify, of what use was it? 
Why was it given? He answers, "It was 
added because of transgressions, till the seed 
should come to whom the promise was made, 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 5 I 

and was ordained by angels in the hand of a 
mediator." (Galatians iii, 19.) The "prom- 
ise" was made to Abraham, in the "ever- 
lasting covenant," that in his "seed" all the 
nations should be blessed. That "seed" was 
Christ ; and the covenant could not be ful- 
filled, and must not be repealed, until Christ 
came, and all the nations received the bless- 
ing of Abraham through him. Hence, its 
fulfillment and development belong to the 
Gospel period. But before Christ came the 
Israelites were strongly inclined to wicked- 
ness, especially to idolatry and unbelief; and 
in order to restrain their evil passions, and to 
prepare them for the advent of the Messiah, 
the promised seed, "the law," with its pro- 
hibitions and curse, and with its burdensome 
rites, was "added" to the Abrahamic cov- 
enant with its "promise," as the most effect- 
ual means of promoting piety and the fear of 
the Lord among a people so refractory. 

5. The Mosaic covenant was blended with 
one part of the Abrahamic covenant; that is 
to say, that the literal part of the covenant 
with Abraham was taken up into the Mosaic, 
so that all that related to the literal seed of 



52 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Abraham, and the temporal promises, and 
the inheritance in the literal Canaan, was 
embraced in the covenant with Moses, and 
fulfilled in the establishment of Israel in the 
land of promise. Thus there was in fact a 
real union of these covenants, without antag- 
onism, in the dispensation of the law; show- 
ing that the law did not disannul the promise, 
nor displace, nor repeal, any part of the cov- 
enant with Abraham. 

6. The Mosaic covenant was abolished, 
and the Abrahamic covenant established, by 
the coming of the Messiah. This is clear, 
from many Scriptures. The law was added 
for a limited time, and must needs expire, by 
limitation, with the appearance of Christ, the 
promised seed. "The law was added because 
of transgressions, till the seed should come, 
to whom the promise was made." The 
Abrahamic covenant existed for four hundred 
and thirty years without the law, and the ad- 
dition of the law made no change in the cov- 
enant, and had no effect upon it except to 
fulfill its temporal aspects, so that when the 
work for which the law was added was done, 
and the time for its expiration arrived, it 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 53 

gave way for the maturity of the promise, 
and the development of the covenant in its 
spiritual part, without affecting the integrity 
of the covenant in the least. It can not, 
therefore, be that the covenants with Moses 
and Abraham were the same, or that the ex- 
piration of the law, by limitation, could 
repeal, invalidate, or disannul the promise, 
which looked forward to Christ, "the prom- 
ised seed," and the dispensation of spiritual 
blessings through him to "all nations." The 
fact that the Mosaic covenant expired, by 
limitation, at the death of Christ, requires 
no proof; but how the death of Christ could 
operate to repeal or supersede the Abrahamic 
covenant, with reference to its spiritual as- 
pects, is something which the opposers of 
infant baptism have never been able to show, 
although they have spent much labor in the 
attempt. Paul taught plainly that Christ did 
not repeal or supersede this covenant, but 
that he confirmed it. "Now I say that Jesus 
Christ was a minister of circumcision for the 
truth of God, to confirm the promise made 
unto the fathers, and that the Gentiles might 
glorify God for his mercy," etc. (Romans 



54 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

xv, 8, 9.) The "promise made unto the fa- 
thers/' in which the Gentiles were interested, 
and which Jesus Christ, as the minister of 
circumcision, confirmed, was the promise of 
blessing in the seed of Abraham for all na- 
tions. This part of the covenant existed only 
in promise, although it was a covenant prom- 
ise, ratified by the sign of circumcision, until 
Christ came, when the fleshly part of the 
covenant, being fulfilled, passed away, and 
the spiritual part came forward in full devel- 
opment, in the form of the Gospel Church, 
including all the spiritual seed of Abraham, 
and bestowing upon them the appointed 
token, which is not circumcision, but bap- 
tism. This spiritual covenant is now con- 
firmed of God in Christ, and as the institution 
of the law could not disannul the promise, so 
neither could the expiration of the law inval- 
idate any of the covenanted rights of the 
spiritual seed. The Abrahamic covenant, 
therefore, stands forth "the everlasting cov- 
enant/' the covenant of grace, the charter of 
the Church of Jesus Christ, down to the end 
of time. The old anti-Pedobaptist notion 
was, that the covenant of Abraham was 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 55 

so blended with that of Moses as to be one 
with it, and therefore that it was confined 
to the literal descendants of Abraham, and 
limited to temporal promises, and passed 
away with the dispensation of Moses; and 
that, consequently, all rights and privileges 
secured to adults or infants, under that cov- 
enant, passed away with the law of ceremo- 
nies and the ushering in of the kingdom of 
Christ. The incorrectness of this view is now 
apparent. It is utterly insufficient to account 
for the terms of the covenant, or the lan- 
guage of the New Testament writers respect- 
ing it. It involves absurdities and contradic- 
tions that brand it as error, while the proofs 
abound that this covenant was spiritual as 
well as temporal; that it was distinct from the 
covenant of Moses, and grandly survives the 
abrogation of the old dispensation, bearing to 
all nations the covenanted mercies of the 
Gospel of Jesus Christ. It has always been 
felt, if the Abrahamic covenant is spiritual, 
and remains in force under the Gospel as the 
charter of the Church of Jesus Christ, that, 
inasmuch as infants were included in that 
covenant, and received the token of recog- 



$6 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

nition as the heirs of promise, by the express 
command of God, they still have the right to 
the same recognition by the appointed token, 
under the dispensation of the kingdom of 
God. And this is a proposition which no 
learning can invalidate, and nothing better 
than quibbling can avoid. If the Abrahamic 
covenant is in force to-day, as it surely is, 
unless it can be shown to have been repealed, 
there is no power on earth to disprove the 
right of our infant offspring to recognition in 
the Church by Christian baptism. 

We must now look more directly at the 
twofold character of this covenant, and par- 
ticularly at its spiritual aspects. The po- 
sition has been assumed that God made no 
covenant with Abraham in the proper sense, 
but only promised him two covenants, one 
of which was fully developed, signed, sealed, 
and delivered at Mt. Sinai, and the other at 
Mt. Zion. This, however, does not quite 
accord with the truth. The covenant was 
made, signed, sealed, and delivered, so to 
speak, in Abraham's day, when he received 
the sign of circumcision as the token of the 
covenant between God and himself. That 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 57 

one covenant, so formally delivered and es- 
tablished, contained two classes of promises, 
and these promises were afterward confirmed 
and developed into distinct covenants — not to 
supersede the Abrahamic, but in pursuance 
of it, as the means of carrying out its stipu- 
lations with reference to the literal and spirit- 
ual seed and the temporal and spiritual bless- 
ings. All the forms the Church of God 
afterward assumed, under Moses and under 
Christ, were in the direct line of the fulfill- 
ment of the covenant with Abraham. The 
covenant at Sinai was "added;" but its de- 
velopment fulfilled the temporal part of the 
covenant, which had been given four hundred 
and thirty years before. 

The apostle Paul illustrated this twofold 
idea of the covenant by the history of Abra- 
ham's family, in the "allegory," found in 
Galatians iv, 22-26: "For it is written that 
Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond- 
maid, the other by a free woman. But he 
who was of the bondwoman was born after 
the flesh; but he of the free woman was by 
promise. Which things are an allegory: for 
these are the two covenants ; the one from 



58 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bond- 
age, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount 
Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem 
which now is, and is in bondage with her 
children. But Jerusalem which is above is 
free, which is the mother of us all. '" The 
word "covenants" here means testaments, as 
in the margin. In this allegory the bond- 
woman and her son are the types of the 
Mosaic covenant, which took up into its con- 
stitution the temporal promises to Abraham; 
for it is a covenant that proceeds from Sinai, 
which answereth to Jerusalem, which after- 
ward became the metropolis of the nation 
organized under the covenant of Sinai. In 
other words, the bondwoman represents the 
Church under the law, while her son, born 
after the flesh, represents the literal descend- 
ants of Abraham, who constituted the mem- 
bership of the Church during the period of 
its bondage to the law of ceremonies. In 
like manner, the free woman and her son 
are types of the spiritual part of the cov- 
enant, or of the Church under the Gospel, 
which proceeded from Jerusalem, as the law 
did from Sinai. Jerusalem which is above is 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 59 

the spiritual Zion, the Church of God under 
the Gospel, of which the free woman, Sarah, 
was the type, whose membership are "chil- 
dren of promise/' not literal descendants of 
Abraham, but his spiritual seed, typified by 
Isaac, the child of promise, born to Abraham 
by special dispensation of God. The apostle 
applies this illustration of the covenants of 
Moses and Abraham by saying, "Now we, 
brethren, as Isaac w r as, are children of prom- 
ise.' ' And again, "So then, brethren, we 
are not children of the bondwoman, but of 
the free." 

A careful consideration of the blessings 
promised in the covenant with Abraham, will 
show the correctness of the view taken of 
the oneness of that covenant, with its two 
branches, the temporal and the spiritual. 

1. The first item in the covenant is, "I 
w r ill bless thee, and make thy name great, 
and thou shalt be a blessing," etc. This im- 
plied worldly prosperity and usefulness, to- 
gether with personal acceptance with God 
and a high state of spiritual enjoyment. In 
both respects, it was fulfilled in the experi- 
ence of the patriarch. 



60 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

2. The covenant secured to Abraham a 
numerous progeny, of whom Messiah should 
be born; and also a spiritual seed as numer- 
ous as the stars of heaven. He was made 
the "father of many nations. " This was 
literally true, but its proper application is to 
the spiritual relationship. Thus Paul under- 
stood it, as the following shows: "And he 
received the sign of circumcision, a seal of 
the righteousness of the faith which he had 
yet being uncircumcised: that he might be 
the father of all them that believe, though 
they be not circumcised; that righteousness 
might be imputed unto them also : and the 
father of circumcision to them who are not 
of the circumcision only, but who also walk in 
the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, 
which he had being yet uncircumcised. For 
the promise that he should be the heir of the 
world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, 
through the law, but through the righteous- 
ness of faith. For if they which are of the 
law be heirs, faith is made void, and the 
promise made of none, effect : because the law 
worketh wrath ; for where no law is, there is 
no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 6 1 

that it might be by grace; to the end the 
the promise might be sure to all the seed; 
not to that only which is of the law, but to 
that also which is of the faith of Abraham; 
who is the father of us all, as it is written, I 
have made thee a father of many nations, be- 
fore him whom he believed/' etc. (Romans 
iv, 11-17.) "Know ye, therefore, that they 
which are of faith, the same are the children 
of Abraham." "There is neither Jew nor 
Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there 
is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one 
in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then 
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according 
to the promise." (Galatians iii, 6-29.) These 
passages fix the sense of the promise that 
Abraham should be the father of many na- 
tions, and show that it looked forward to 
Gospel times, and contemplated a spiritual 
seed. 

3. The covenant secured to his descend- 
ants the land of Canaan for an inheritance 
and possession. This promise was fulfilled 
after the bondage in Egypt and the sojourn 
in the wilderness ; but even this promise of 
the literal Canaan, though belonging to the 



62 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

temporal part of the covenant had within it 
a high spiritual import. The inheritance in 
Canaan was a type and pledge of the inherit- 
ance in heaven. The author of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews so interpreted it. When he 
would impress the reader with the danger of 
apostasy, he pointed to the example of their 
fathers, who failed through unbelief of en- 
tering into the rest of Canaan, and thereby 
urged fidelity, lest they should fail of the 
heavenly rest. Of the ancient worthies, in- 
cluding Abraham, we have this record: 
4 'These all died in faith, not having re- 
ceived the promises, but having seen them 
afar off, and were persuaded of them, and 
embraced them, and confessed that they were 
pilgrims and strangers on the earth. For 
they that say such things declare plainly that 
they seek a country. And, truly, if they had 
been mindful of that country from whence 
they came out, they might have had oppor- 
tunity to have returned. But now they de- 
sire a better country, that is, an heavenly: 
wherefore God is not ashamed to be called 
their God: for he hath prepared for them 
a city." (Hebrews xi, 13-16.) And if any 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 63 

doubt that Abraham understood the promise 
in the covenant to include the heavenly coun- 
try, I refer them to the words of this chapter 
a few verses above the ones read: "By faith 
he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a 
strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with 
Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the 
same promise: for he looked for a city which 
hath foundations, whose builder and maker Is 
God." (Hebrews xi, 9, 10.) Abraham him- 
self, it will be seen, regarded the "land of 
promise" as a type of the "better country," 
in which God had prepared for him a city 
with foundations. 

4. This covenant contained the promise 
of the redemption of the world through our 
Lord Jesus Christ. "And in thy seed shall 
all the nations of the earth be blessed." 
That "seed" was Christ. Through him the 
blessing of Abraham comes on the Gentiles. 
To the fulfillment of this promise, which was 
the crowning glory of all God's revelations, 
the entire covenant constantly looked. This 
was its grand design, and its every part was 
arranged with reference to this result. The 
"blessing" promised to the nations through 



64 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Christ was primarily the gift of the Holy- 
Ghost. "Repent and be baptized, every- 
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, 
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Ghost; for the promise 
is unto you, and to your children, and to all 
that are afar off, even as many as the Lord 
our God shall call." The apostles every-where 
appealed to the covenant with Abraham as 
authority for offering spiritual blessings to the 
people. Surely, then, that covenant was the 
Gospel covenant. Strange that any should 
deny it! Paul says: "Christ hath redeemed 
us from the curse of the law, being made a 
curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham 
might come on the Gentiles through Jesus 
Christ, that we might receive the promise of 
the Spirit through faith.' ' To "receive the 
promise of the Spirit" is to receive the Spirit 
promised in the Abrahamic covenant. This 
is the "blessing of Abraham" — the bless- 
ing promised him, and, through his seed, 
to all nations — the very blessing that comes 
on the Gentiles through faith in Jesus 
Christ. "And the Scripture, foreseeing that 
God would justify the heathen through faith, 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 65 

preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, 
saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 
So then they which be of faith are blessed 
with faithful Abraham." When the nations 
receive the Gospel and its blessings, they are 
blessed with faithful Abraham. They receive 
the Holy Spirit promised, which is the full- 
ness of blessing. Thus all nations are blessed 
through the preaching of the Gospel, because 
the Gospel brings to every soul this promise 
of the Spirit through faith. The reception of 
the Gospel, with its gift of the Spirit, consti- 
tutes believing Gentiles the children of Abra- 
ham, and heirs according to the promise. It 
is therefore as clear as the light that the cov- 
enant with Abraham is the Gospel covenant. 
We now see that the repeal or abrogation 
of the Mosaic covenant, or its passing away 
by expiration of the time for which it was 
made, did not touch the integrity and bind- 
ing force of the Abrahamic covenant. This 
is an important point; for opposers of infant 
baptism make their strongest argument on the 
passing away of the "old covenant" and the 
establishment of "the new covenant." They 
quote with great confidence the prophecy 

5 



66 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

of Jeremiah, and the quotation and applica- 
tion of that prophecy in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, as if the abrogation of the "old 
covenant' ' repealed all the rights conferred 
on the little children in the Abrahamic cove- 
nant. The radical error of anti-pedobaptists 
on this point is in confounding the "old cov- 
enant/' which "waxed old," with the Abra- 
hamic covenant, which never did "wax old." 
The covenant which "waxed old" was that 
with Moses, not that with Abraham. Jere- 
miah says: "Behold, the days come, saith 
the Lord, that I will make a new covenant 
with the house of Israel, and with the house 
of Judah: not according to the covenant that I 
made with their fathers, in the day that I took 
them by the hand to bring them out of the land 
of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, 
although I was an husband unto them, saith 
the Lord: but this shall be the covenant that 
I will make with the house of Israel; After 
those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law 
in their inward parts, and write it in their 
hearts; and will be their God, and they shall 
be my people." (Jeremiah xxxi, 31-33.) 
The covenant with Abraham was not the 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 6j 

one that was made in the day that God took 
the Israelites by the hand to lead them out 
of Egypt; nor was its promise of a spiritual 
seed and spiritual blessings made any part of 
the covenant that "waxed old" and vanished 
away. On the contrary, every marked fea- 
ture of the "new covenant" corresponds with 
that which was spiritual in the Abrahamic 
covenant, which, as we have seen so plainly, 
was the Gospel covenant. That which is spir- 
itual never "waxes old," although it ante- 
dates the fleshly covenant four hundred and 
thirty years. It is as new to-day as it was 
the night when Abraham first lifted his eyes 
to the stars of heaven to be impressed with 
the countless multitude of his spiritual seed. 
We have now seen that the covenant with 
Abraham, which embraced the little children, 
and required their dedication to God and the 
bestowment upon them of the token of the 
covenant, was one in fact, while it branched 
out into two parts, the literal and the spir- 
itual; that it contemplated a literal and a 
spiritual seed; that it contained promises of 
temporal and spiritual blessings; that it was 
adapted to the condition and wants of Jews 



68 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

and Gentiles; that neither the institution nor 
the dissolution of the ceremonial law, under 
the covenant with Moses, affected its integrity 
as a covenant; and that, in its full develop- 
ment, under the promised seed, it belongs to 
the Gospel dispensation, and is, therefore, 
the charter of the Church of Jesus Christ 
through all the ages. Who, then, with these 
points before him, that entertains high regard 
for the Word of God, and respects rigid ad- 
herence to right rules of interpretation, can 
doubt that the covenant Christians are under 
to-day is the one that God made with Abra- 
ham, when he made him the father of all 
that believe? That was emphatically the 
covenant of redemption, "the everlasting 
covenant," the only covenant containing the 
promise of salvation through the Messiah. 
In its literal aspects, it related to the Jews, 
and has been fulfilled. Its literal part was 
the foundation of the Mosaic economy. This 
part of it was temporary, and blended with 
the covenant of Sinai, and passed away with 
the dispensation that constituted its full de- 
velopment. But the spiritual part, which was 
the basis, the life, the soul, of the covenant, 



THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 69 

the Gospel in embryo, remains unimpaired. 
As the temporal part was taken up into the 
Mosaic economy, and fulfilled, so this is un- 
folded and fulfilled in the Gospel economy. 

Here we have firm footing; but the stub- 
bornness of the opposition renders it impor- 
tant to guard the subject. When we affirm 
that the Abrahamic covenant is the Gospel 
covenant, we do not mean that the Gospel, 
in all its fullness of light and privilege, be- 
longed to Abraham and his descendants. Not 
by any means. Nor do we mean that any of 
the civil rights and privileges that pertained 
to the literal aspect of. the covenant pass 
over to the Church of the spiritual seed. 
This has all been settled. But we do mean 
that the spiritual part of that same covenant 
had direct reference to the Gospel day, and 
that all the promises of spiritual blessings be- 
long to all the spiritual seed of Abraham. 
That spiritual seed consists of all God's cov- 
enanted people — of all that are Christ's — who 
constitute the Church, or body of Christ. 
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra- 
ham's seed, and heirs according to the prom- 
ise." Then are infants included, or excluded? 



yo CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

If they are included, their right to the token 
of the covenant is as clear as the midday sun 
in a cloudless sky. But if they are excluded, 
I ask on what ground? By what authority? 
The covenant is the same that God put them 
in at the first organization of his covenanted 
people ; they have not been cut off by unbe- 
lief; they belong to the kingdom of God. 
Then, are they not Christ's? I demand the 
law for cutting them off from the privilege 
once conferred upon them in this covenant, 
a privilege which they could not forfeit 
for themselves. If infants are Abraham's 
spiritual seed, they are in the covenant, and 
have a right to recognition by baptism. If 
they are Christ's, they are Abraham's seed; 
but if they are not Christ's, whose are they? 
How are they saved? How came they in 
the kingdom? Is their salvation by the death 
of Christ, or not? If not, why did Christ 
claim them, and recognize them as of the 
kingdom, and as believers? But if they are 
saved by Christ, they are his; they are in 
him — in the vine, the body, the kingdom, 
the Church; and if so, the New Testament 
token of the covenant belongs to them, as 



THE ABRAIIAMIC COVENANT. 7 1 

surely as the Old Testament token did before 
the coming of Christ. Say not to me that 
they can not sustain covenant relations; the 
whole history of God's dealings with his peo- 
ple proclaims that they can. Say not that 
they may not be dedicated to him by parental 
authority; the plainest injunctions of parental 
obligation, in the Old Testament and in the 
New, point clearly to such dedication as right 
in itself, and as acceptable to God. Say not 
that no benefit can arise from such dedica- 
tion ; that is to question the wisdom of God's 
appointments, and to assume knowledge above 
the records of inspiration. 

Perhaps there is as much hesitation at this 
point as at any point in the whole contro- 
versy. Because men can not see the good 
that comes directly to the child by baptizing 
it, they suppose no evil can result from neg- 
lecting it. So Abraham might have reasoned 
in regard to the circumcision of the child of 
eight days; and so might the Jewish parents 
have reasoned in regard to presenting their 
children before the Lord at forty days old, 
and making an offering for their redemp- 
tion; but such excuses would not have been 



72 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

accepted. God demanded the dedication of 
the children, and in those forms, under the 
Old Testament; and parents have never been 
excused from the duty, although the manner 
of dedication has been changed. The token 
of the covenant is still applicable, and he who 
refuses it should be sure of the ground be- 
neath his feet; for, while rites and forms may 
change, principles are eternal, and the prin- 
ciple of infant dedication to God is here in- 
volved ; and as the duty devolves on the 
parent, the benefit largely depends upon the 
parent's fidelity; and if the performance of 
so solemn a duty as dedicating his child to 
God, in recognition of covenant obligations, 
has no influence upon the heart of the par- 
ent, and no tendency to intensify his feeling 
of obligation to rear the child for God, and 
does not serve as a stimulus to claim the 
divine promises in behalf of his offspring, 
then my own conceptions of the elements of 
human character, and of the nature and pur- 
poses of religious services, are utterly at fault. 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 73 



Discourse III. 

THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 

" There is one body." — Eph. IV, 4. 

THE apostle Paul frequently represented 
the Church as a body, and spoke of it 
particularly as the body of Christ, as distin- 
guished from the body of his flesh. It in- 
cludes all that are Christ's, all the covenanted 
people of God, all the subjects of his spirit- 
ual kingdom. 

I shall therefore make an argument for 
infant baptism, drawn from the substantial 
oneness of the Church of God through all the 
dispensations. 

This is an important matter, and deserves 
the most careful consideration. A vast deal 
of absurd prejudice has been excited at this 
point; and many honest people have been 
misled by false criticism, and have become 
bewildered in the mists of error, until they 



74 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

could not perceive with clearness the sublime 
truth that God never founded but one Church 
on the earth, and that Christ never redeemed 
but one Church by the shedding of his pre- 
cious blood. 

Nor is it strange that the idea of the one- 
ness of the Church should be perverted, after 
being admitted on the testimony of the 
Scriptures. We do not mean by it that all 
worshipers of God, who become members of 
the Church, must be enrolled under one ec- 
clesiastical rule or authority. This thought 
is the distorted doctrine of the unity of the 
Church as held by the apostate Church of 
Rome. Nor do we understand that it is 
requisite that all shall practice the ordinances 
of the Church in precisely the same way. 
This would secure uniformity, if it were prac- 
ticable; but uniformity is not unity. The 
center and source of unity is Christ; and the 
vital union with Christ that secures salvation 
secures the unity of the Church — the oneness 
of which we speak. 

The word ekklesia — church — is from the 
verb ekkaleo. This verb expresses the act of 
calling out, collecting, or separating a class 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 75 

of people from the mass, forming thereby an 
assembly, or congregation. The people thus 
called out, or separated, are the Church — the 
ekklesia — because they are separated and dis- 
tinguished as a peculiar people. God had a 
people before the days of Abraham, but they 
were not called out or formed into a separate 
community. They were not, therefore, a vis- 
ible Church. When God called Abram to 
separate himself from his home and kindred, 
the formation of the Church began ; and when 
the covenant with that patriarch was estab- 
lished, and himself and household entered 
into it, the first organization of the Church 
took place. Ever since then, God has not 
only had a people, but a people called out 
and separated as his peculiar treasure, with 
ordinances to distinguish them from the world. 
These ordinances do not of themselves create 
any new relationship, but only recognize a pre- 
viously existing one. That previously existing 
relationship gives the right to the ordinances; 
and if none received the ordinances except 
those fully entitled to them, none would be 
recognized as members of the visible Church 
but such as are really members of the body 



?6 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

of Christ, or seeking in penitence the way of 
salvation ; and if all received the token of 
recognition who are members of Christ's 
body by spiritual union, and therefore enti- 
tled to it, all partakers of salvation through 
Christ would receive that mark of distinction, 
and thus be enrolled with the people of God. 
In that event, the visible Church would be a 
true manifestation of the kingdom of God. 
Every subject of that kingdom, whether adult 
or infant, would then, by outward consecra- 
tion, be given to the Lord in covenant bonds, 
and wear the badge of membership in the 
family of God. 

When the Church was first organized in 
the family of Abraham, infants were ex- 
pressly included. They received the token 
of the covenant, and were distinguished as 
part of God's chosen people. They were 
certainly capable of being entered as parties 
to God's gracious covenant, for God com- 
manded that it should be done. Their spirit- 
ual relation to the promised Redeemer secured 
their justification from original sin, and con- 
stituted them fit subjects for the Church of 
God. It seems to me that no one not blinded 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. JJ 

by prejudice to the border of bigotry can 
dispute this for one moment. The Church, 
in which infants were placed, was then in its 
infancy; but it had in it all the elements of a 
real Church. It was afterward under a dis- 
pensation of pupilage. The law of Moses 
was its " schoolmaster. " During the period 
of its minority, it was under "tutors and 
governors." But the dispensation of the law 
began and closed without destroying the life 
or the identity of the pupil. It was still the 
Church, advancing toward maturity. No act 
rescinding the act ordaining infant member- 
ship in the Church was ever passed. No act 
rescinding the original charter of the Church 
was ever passed; nor did God ever issue an 
order for establishing a new Church, after he 
made covenant with Abraham. The Savior 
organized no new Church. The apostles or- 
ganized no new Church. The "new cov- 
enant" was the covenant with Abraham, un- 
folded, fulfilled, and confirmed of God in 
Christ. There never has been a moment, 
since Abraham and Isaac were circumcised, 
when God had no Church on the earth ; 
neither has there been a time when he had 



78 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

two Churches. The Church itself has sur- 
vived all the changes of form and outward 
condition that have marked the different dis- 
pensations, as well as all tl^e calamities and 
apostasies that have characterized its history. 
The form of worship has been changed, the 
rites and ceremonies have been modified — in 
a word, the whole machinery has been read- 
justed, as it must needs be, to meet the rela- 
tion of the Church to the new order of things 
growing out of the death of Christ, the expi- 
ration of the ceremonial law, the cessation of 
the types, the institution of the sacraments, 
and the calling 'of the Gentiles. A new dis- 
pensation came, and a new token of the cov- 
enant was appointed, but the Church of God * 
retained its identity. It continued to be the 
body of Christ, the kingdom of God, the 
Church which he purchased with his own 
blood — the only Church he ever had, ever 
bought, ever redeemed or saved. In the 
days of Elijah, when there was a great apos- 
tasy, and the prophet thought the Church was 
destroyed, and that he himself was left alone, 
God assured him that there were yet seven 
thousand who had not bowed the knee to 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. Jg 

Baal. In the days of Christ there was a great 
apostasy. The great body of the Jews re- 
jected the Messiah, and were cut off, excom- 
municated from the Church; but the Church 
was not destroyed. Even then, God did not 
cast away his people. There was a remnant 
left, "according to the election of grace. " 
On the day of Pentecost, the new converts 
were "added" to the Church. They were 
not in the Church simply by virtue of being 
Jews. The Church was in the nation, but it 
was not the nation. The "congregation of 
the Lord" was distinct from the common- 
wealth; although, during the minority of the 
Church, its laws, and rites, and services were 
much interwoven with the civil institutions 
of the land. So when the kingdom of God 
was taken from the Jews, they were still a 
people, and are to this day, but not the 
people of God, within his covenant, and 
entitled to his favor. They were cut off 
through unbelief. But infants belonged to 
the kingdom of God still. They were never 
excommunicated, because they were never 
guilty of unbelief. Nothing else than that 
could unchurch them. 



80 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

We must look closely as we proceed. 
What do we mean by the Church member- 
ship of infants? If infants are members of 
the Church of Christ, it will hardly be denied 
that they may be baptized. Infant Church 
membership and infant baptism stand or fall 
together. But what about their membership? 
God originally placed them in the covenant; 
but in what sense do they belong to the 
Church? Mark, I am not speaking of the 
Church in the lower applications of the term, 
as to the house of worship, or the congrega- 
tion convened; nor am I speaking of any or 
all the ecclesiastical denominations; but of 
the Church of God, which embraces all his 
covenanted people, the mystical body of 
Christ. This Church is but another name for 
the kingdom of God on earth. All who be- 
long to the kingdom — that is, all the subjects 
of salvation — belong to this Church. Nor am 
I speaking of belonging to the Church in 
form; that is, in the sense of actual recogni- 
tion by the visible ordinance, which is the 
badge of membership, as it is the token of 
the covenant; for some who really belong to 
the kingdom may never be recognized by any 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 8 1 

association of Christians, while others may be 
formally recognized who have no right to such 
distinction, by reason of lacking all spiritual 
qualifications. But I am speaking now of 
belonging to the Church by right. Every 
subject of Christ's kingdom has a right to be 
recognized as a member of Christ's Church. 
And this right does not depend on the cere- 
mony that acknowledges it, nor does it grow 
out of any earthly or fleshly relationship. It 
arises solely from a spiritual relation to Christ. 
The giving of the ceremony can not create 
the right, nor can the withholding of the cer- 
emony destroy it. If any subject of Christ's 
spiritual dominion is refused recognition, this 
does not destroy his relation to Christ, which 
is the foundation of all spiritual privileges; 
and if any hypocritical pretender should im- 
pose himself upon the Church, and obtain 
recognition as a member, he does not neces- 
sarily become a subject of the kingdom. In 
this state of imperfection, it is not possible to 
square the lines of the visible Church with 
those of Christ's kingdom ; but if, owing to 
imperfect administration, any who ought to 
be recognized as members fail to obtain rec- 



\ 



82 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

ognition, the right will remain unimpaired, 
while the relation subsists in which it is 
founded. Hence, all who are in the visible 
Church without the necessary relation to the 
Savior are intruders; and all who are in 
Christ, in his spiritual kingdom, are entitled 
to recognition by the Church, in the appointed 
covenant rite. 

The Church is set forth in the Scriptures 
under a variety of figures, as, a "vine, " a 
"kingdom," a "building," a "body;" but, 
under all these representations, the Church is 
the same. The "branches" in the vine, the 
"subjects" in the kingdom, the "stones" in 
the building, and the "members" in the 
body, are all the same. All who are in the 
vine are in the kingdom, in the building, in 
the body, the Church. The vine is the 
Church, the kingdom is the Church, the 
building is the Church, and the body is the 
Church. Therefore, to be in the vine, or in 
the kingdom, or in the building, or the body, 
is to be in the Church, by right. This, it 
seems to me, is beyond dispute; and yet it 
is equally clear that all who are entitled to 
a place in the Church, by divine right, are 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 83 

entitled to recognition by Christian baptism. 
In a former discourse, we found that infants 
are in the "kingdom," and that they are the 
models of fitness for that relation; it there- 
fore follows that they are in the vine, in the 
building, in the body, the Church. 

And Christ never had but one kingdom. 
The manifestation of that kingdom was not 
perfect under the former dispensation, while 
the Church was yet under "tutors and gov- 
ernors;" but it did exist, and in the eye of 
God its lines were as distinctly traced as in 
later times. God has but one "building," 
which is made up of "lively stones," a royal 
temple, built under the direction of the Su- 
preme Architect, the Holy Spirit. It rests 
on the foundation of the apostles and proph- 
ets, Jesus Christ himself the chief corner-stone. 
Into this building all the variety of material, 
gathered throughout the nations and the ages, 
is fitly framed together, making an holy tem- 
ple, a habitation of God through the Spirit. 
Wrought into it were all the patriarchs and 
prophets, and all the saints and worthies of 
Old Testament times; and into this same 
building are wrought apostles and martyrs, 



84 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

and all the saved under the Gospel. It is the 
grand spiritual edifice whose cap-stone will be 
brought with shoutings of grace, when the 
last sinner saved shall find his place in the 
holy temple of the Lord. And Christ has 
but one mystical body. The "body of his 
flesh" is always distinguished from "his 
body, the Church.' ' "There is one body, 
and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one 
hope of your calling. " Permit a longer quo- 
tation. "For as the body is one, and hath 
many members, and all the members of that 
one body, being many, are one body; so also 
is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all bap- 
tized into one body, whether we be Jews or 
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and 
have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 
For the body is not one member, but many. 
If the foot shall say, Because I am not the 
hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore 
not of the body? And if the ear shall say, 
Because I am not the eye, I am not of the 
body; is it therefore not of the body? If 
the whole body were an eye, where were the 
hearing? If the whole were hearing, where 
were the smelling? But now hath God set 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 85 

the members every one of them in the body, as 
it hath pleased him. And if they were all one 
member, where were the body? But now are 
they many members, yet but one body. And 
the eye can not say unto the hand, I have no 
need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, 
I have no need of you. Nay, much more 
those members of the body, which seem to 
be more feeble, are necessary. And those 
members of the body, which we think to be 
less honorable, upon these we bestow more 
abundant honor: and our uncomely parts 
have more abundant comeliness. For our 
comely parts have no need; but God hath 
tempered the body together, having given 
more abundant honor to that part which 
lacked: that there should be no schism in 
the body; but that the members should have 
the same care one for another. And whether 
one member suffer, all the members suffer 
with it: or one member be honored, all the 
members rejoice with it. Now ye are the 
body of Christ, and members in particular." 
(1 Corinthians xii, 12-27.) Surely, if all this 
mean any thing, it means that Christ has 
but one body, and that all the subjects of 



86 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

salvation through him, in every clime and 
age, are members in that one body. 

But one question can be raised here, and 
that is whether this Church, which is the 
body of Christ, includes the membership of 
the Church under the Old Testament. It is 
sometimes urged that in the Old Testament 
Church there was a different covenant, a dif- 
ferent priesthood, a different offering, and that 
the differences were sufficient to make a differ- 
ent Church. On the subject of the covenant, 
we said enough in the preceding discourse; 
and it is sufficient now to remark that all the 
priesthoods and offerings and bloody sacri- 
fices and watery ablutions of the Old Tes- 
tament were meaningless and void without 
Christ. Christ died for those who lived be- 
fore his coming, as truly as he did for those 
who lived after his day. If we sit down in 
the kingdom of God, it will be with Abra- 
ham, Isaac, and Jacob. There never was 
but one Savior, one Redeemer, one Media- 
tor, one High-priest. All others were but 
types. Jesus Christ was "the lamb slain 
from the foundation of the world." He, by 
the grace of God, tasted death for every 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 87 

man. The merits of his atonement rolled 
back to the first transgression and forward 
to the end of time, extending on either side 
to the uttermost limit of human guilt. Then 
was not Christ as truly the Savior of the 
Church before the incarnation as he has been 
since? Was he not with the Church in the 
wilderness? Was not his Spirit in the proph- 
ets? (1 Peter i, 10, 11.) Was he not in all 
the promises and types and ordinances of the 
Old Testament? Then will the Old Testa- 
ment Church be saved? If so, will it be 
saved through Christ or not? If not, through 
whom? Where is there another Savior? But, 
if through Christ, how but through his death? 
Will there be any Church in heaven not re- 
deemed with his blood? Will there be any 
human souls in heaven not of his Church? 
Will there be a Church there of which he 
is not the Foundation, the Head, the High- 
priest, and the Savior? It is time, you see, 
that we begin to look at the results of deny- 
ing the oneness of the Church through all 
the ages. Such a denial involves the most 
appalling absurdities, and leaves us without 
the ability to explain God's dealings with the 



88 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

ancients, or to understand the services of his 
Church or the meaning of the types. 

In proof that Christ died for sinners who 
lived under the Old Testament, I present the 
following: "And for this cause he is the me- 
diator of the new testament, that by means 
of death, for the redemption of the transgres- 
sions that were under the first testament, they 
which are called might receive the promise 
of eternal inheritance." (Hebrews ix, 15.) 
There is no denying this. Christ died for 
sinners who lived under the first testament. 
His was the only real sacrifice ever made, 
the only real atonement. He is the only 
foundation, the only hope; and that Church 
which is his body is the only Church. 

Take a Scriptural illustration of this sub- 
ject. I refer to the "olive-tree," which has 
often been employed in this service since Paul 
first gave it: "For if the first-fruit be holy, 
the lump is also holy: and if the root be 
holy, so are the branches. And if some of 
the branches be broken off, and thou, being 
a wild olive-tree, wert graffed in among them, 
and with them partakest of the root and fat- 
ness of the olive-tree; boast not against the 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 89 

branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest 
not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt 
say then, The branches were broken off, that 
I might be graffed in. Well; because of un- 
belief they were broken off, and thou standest 
by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: for 
if God spared not the natural branches, take 
heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold 
therefore the goodness and severity of God: 
on them which fell, severity; but toward 
thee, goodness, if thou continue in his good- 
ness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 
And they also, if they abide not still in un- 
belief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to 
graff them in again. For if thou wert cut 
out of the olive-tree which is wild by nature, 
and wert graffed contrary to nature into a 
good olive-tree; how much more shall these, 
which be the natural branches, be graffed into 
their own olive-tree?" (Romans xi, 16-24.) 
What does this olive-tree represent? Upon 
the answer to this question must hinge the 
whole meaning of the passage. Objectors to 
the doctrine that the Church is one through 
all the dispensations, differ at this point. In- 
deed, nothing seems satisfactory to them that 



90 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

they have been able to invent. Some tell us 
it represents Abraham, the father of the Jew- 
ish nation. But does the olive-tree represent 
Abraham? If so, the natural branches, on be- 
ing broken off, would simply be broken off 
from being the natural descendants of Abra- 
ham ! This can not be the meaning; and 
therefore the olive-tree does not mean Abra- 
ham. Others tell us that it means the New 
Testament Church, of which the apostles were 
the first-fruit and the root. But, if so, how 
were the Jews the natural branches of this 
tree? And how were they broken off from a 
tree they were never in? This will never do. 
The only sensible answer that can be given 
is that the olive-tree represents the visible 
Church of God, In fuller statement of the 
case, I lay down six propositions: I. The 
tree represents the visible Church of God. 
2. The natural branches were the Jews, the 
first in the covenant. 3. Only those guilty of 
unbelief were broken off. 4. The tree was 
not destroyed, only dismembered in part. 
5. The calling of the Gentiles, and grafting 
them in, made no new olive-tree, no new 
Church. 6. The Jews are hereafter to be 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 9 1 

grafted in again, not into a new tree, but 
into the same old olive-tree from which 
they were broken off — "into their own olive- 
tree/' But no such thing could ever be, if 
the Church to which they belonged went out 
of existence with the passing away of the 
ceremonial law. 

Now we are at a crisis in the argument. 
The visible Church is represented by the olive- 
tree. That olive-tree survived the breaking 
off of the natural branches. This means the 
exscinding of the Jews, who had been in the 
visible Church by sufferance, after they had 
lost all spiritual qualifications, until the time 
of excision came. Then they were rejected. 
The kingdom of God was taken from them. 
Infants were in this visible Church, and 
were recognized by the visible token of the 
covenant, under the express command of 
God. Were they cut off with the unbeliev- 
ing Jews? Did the dismemberment of the 
olive-tree carry away these tender scions? 
Were they guilty of unbelief? Did Christ 
regard them as worthy of expulsion when he 
said, "Suffer them to come unto me, and 
forbid them not?" Did he regard them as 



92 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

excommunicated when he said, "Of such is 
the kingdom of heaven?" 

But here comes another objection. It is 
asserted that the ground of infant membership 
in the Church, under the Abrahamic cove- 
nant, was a fleshly relation to Abraham, or 
purchase with money. Much has been made 
of the "fleshly relation, " under the "old 
covenant," and the spiritual relation, under 
the new. We have seen w r hat the "old cov- 
enant" was, and now we must dispose of this 
"fleshly relation." If the "fleshly relation" 
to Abraham were the ground of membership, 
none could enjoy membership without that 
"fleshly relation." But membership was never 
confined to the fleshly relation. Abraham's 
own children, and the children of servants, 
born in his house, and those bought with 
money, were treated alike. All received the 
token of the covenant. "He that is born in 
thy house, and he that is bought with thy 
money, must needs be circumcised." Pur- 
chase with money was no ground of mem- 
bership. Neither was the fleshly relation. 
Purchase with money brought the child of 
the stranger under the control of Abraham, 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 93 

and the duty was imposed upon him to bring 
all that were under his control into covenant 
relation with God. This is all the purchase 
with money had to do with membership in 
the Church. The ground of the membership 
was something behind the fleshly relation, or 
the purchase with money. It was something 
in regard to which Abraham's children, and 
those bought of the stranger, occupied com- 
mon ground. What could this be, except 
their spiritual relation to the promised Mes- 
siah? The spiritual aspect of the covenant 
must not be forgotten. It had reference to a 
spiritual seed, to spiritual blessings, and spir- 
itual privileges. The promise, "I will be a 
God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee," 
implied spiritual privileges and blessings. 
The change of Abram's name related to the 
extension of the covenant to those not his de- 
scendants. The spiritual element ran through 
the whole covenant. Even that which was 
literal typified the spiritual. Therefore the 
idea that the covenant with Abraham, which 
gave membership to infants, related merely 
to the flesh, is not only unsupported, but it 
is false. This very covenant, that gave to 



94 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

infants the first place in the Church, that re- 
quired them to receive the sign of recogni- 
tion, contained the promise of the Messiah, 
and that all nations should be blessed through 
him. It is, therefore, plain that the ground 
of infant membership in the covenant, and in 
the Church, was identical with the ground of 
their salvation. It was a spiritual relation to 
the promised seed. Abraham himself sus- 
tained the spiritual relation to his promised 
seed, the Messiah, which secured his justifi- 
cation, not by the flesh, but by faith; and 
his infant offspring sustained the same rela- 
tion to Christ, without faith; therefore they 
were alike fit for the same token of the cov- 
enant, and they both received it. The ground 
of Church membership was then, as now, the 
ground of salvation. The sign of member- 
ship is the sign of salvation. Hence, those 
born in Abraham's house, and those bought 
with money, were given the religious rite of 
circumcision on the same terms. The "fleshly 
relation " was not the ground of it in any case. 
4 'The unconditional benefits of the atone- 
ment" reached back # to the infant offspring 
of Abraham and to the children of the 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 95 

stranger alike. No more deceptive figment 
of the imagination was ever palmed upon the 
credulity of honest people than that Church 
membership, under the Abrahamic covenant, 
was founded in a fleshly relation. It is pure 
fiction, as soulless and unsubstantial as an in- 
fant's dream. Would that it were as harm- 
less ! The more we examine this subject, 
the more clearly it appears that the ground 
of membership in the Church, under the cov- 
enant that first organized the Church and 
placed infants in it, is the identical ground 
of their membership in the kingdom of God 
to-day. 

We come now to another vital question. 
Was there any religious meaning, or spiritual 
signification, in circumcision ? Circumcision 
was the token of the covenant, given to Abra- 
ham and his infant child. It marked their 
covenant relation, and betokened to them 
the faithfulness of God, and pointed to the 
realization of all that was promised in the 
covenant. But it is now claimed that it was 
not a religious rite; that it was simply a 
fleshly ordinance, and had in it nothing of a 
religious or spiritual character. We see at a 



g6 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

glance how important this ground is to all 
anti-Pedobaptists, and they have not failed to 
make the most of it. But the position will 
not endure scrutiny. Time will permit only 
a hasty glance at the subject, and I shall pre- 
fer at once to take affirmative ground. I ask 
careful attention to the religious meaning of 
circumcision. 

My purpose is to compare circumcision 
and baptism, and no mistake should be made 
in regard to the points of comparison. Cir- 
cumcision is not baptism ; nor is baptism like 
circumcision, in its nature, subjects, or de- 
sign. There is a substantial difference be- 
tween the two rites in all these respects. 
Nor need we be concerned about the manner 
in which baptism superseded circumcision. 
It is a fact, admitted on all sides, that cir- 
cumcision was laid aside when the ceremonial 
law passed away, and that baptism was insti- 
tuted, by the authority of Christ, as the badge 
of membership in the Church of God. These 
two rites differ widely in many things; but 
with the points of difference we now have 
nothing to do. Our business is with one 
single point of agreement. I speak of the 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 97 

spiritual import of circumcision, and will show 
that that import is precisely the same as the 
spiritual import of baptism. Circumcision 
had a civil bearing, a relation to the Jewish 
nationality; but that is nothing to the ques- 
tion before us. It had a religious use, a 
spiritual significance. The outward rite im- 
ported the cutting off of the sinful propensi- 
ties, the restraint of all wicked passions and 
indulgences. It symbolized the circumcision 
of the heart. Hence Paul said: "He is not 
a Jew which is one outwardly ; neither is that 
circumcision which is outward in the flesh ; 
but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and 
circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, 
and not in the letter; whose praise is not of 
men, but of God." (Romans ii, 28, 29.) 
Circumcision was emblematical; it pointed to 
the moral purification of the heart. Hence 
the command, "Circumcise the foreskin of 
your hearts, and be no more stiff-necked/' 
(Deuteronomy x, 16.) Hence, also, the 
promise, "The Lord thy God will circumcise 
thy heart to love the Lord thy God with all 
thy heart." (Deuteronomy xxx, 6.) These 
Scriptures show that the religious meaning 

7 



98 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

which Paul put upon the rite was not a mere 
figurative meaning, suggested by the spirit- 
uality of his Christian doctrine, but that it 
was its old and well-settled meaning under 
the law. It was a religious rite from the be- 
ginning, even before it was invested with any 
civil or national meaning. 

In the case of Abraham, it had a religious 
meaning, most unquestionably. "He received 
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the right- 
eousness of the faith which he had, being yet 
uncircumcised." (Romans iv, 11.) What- 
ever else circumcision was made under the 
law, as a civil rite, it was, from its first ap- 
pointment as the token of the covenant, a 
"seal of righteousness" — not of faith, nor 
of repentance, nor of obedience, but of 
"righteousness;" and righteousness here is 
to be taken in the sense of justification. 
"Abraham believed God, and it was ac- 
counted to him for righteousness;" and this 
righteousness of faith was "sealed" by cir- 
cumcision. It was a significant religious or- 
dinance, and as such it was given to infants ; 
not to seal their faith, for they did not exer- 
cise faith; nor to seal native holiness, for 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 99 

they possessed nothing of the kind; but to 
seal their justification in the Lord Messiah, 
the seed of Abraham. It was to them the 
badge of their covenant relation. It marked 
them as belonging to the congregation of the 
Lord. It proclaimed them capable of re- 
ceiving a religious rite, and able to sustain a 
covenant relation. Those who laugh at infant 
baptism would probably have ridiculed all 
this ; but it was the appointment of the Lord 
notwithstanding. The Abrahamic covenant 
gave them this religious rite, and that cove- 
nant is the Gospel covenant. Only the tem- 
poral part of that covenant passed away by 
fulfillment, while all that was religious in it 
remains in full force under the New Testa- 
ment; and infants are as capable of a religious 
ordinance now as they were then. The full 
development of the covenant under the Gos- 
pel does not restrict, but enlarges, the priv- 
ileges of the covenanted people of God. It 
turns out none but the unbelieving. What, 
then, is the conclusion? Infants were in the 
covenant; they received the token; that was 
a religious rite; they were dedicated to God, 
and their covenant privileges have never been 



IOO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

curtailed. And baptism, as a religious rite 
under the New Testament, possesses the same 
spiritual import and signification that belonged 
to circumcision under the Old Testament. From 
this proposition there can be no dissent; and 
yet, if admitted, it will follow that no objec- 
tion can be urged against infant baptism that 
might not have been urged with the same 
force against the circumcision of infants under 
the former dispensation. 

Here we stand. The spiritual import of 
baptism is precisely what the spiritual import 
of circumcision was under the Old Testament. 
Baptism is a religious rite, as was circumcis- 
ion. It is emblematical, as was circumcision. 
It symbolizes the cutting off of sin, or the 
moral purification of the heart, as did cir- 
cumcision. It is the mark, or token, of rec- 
ognition in the covenant or Church of God, 
as was circumcision. It therefore follows that 
baptism not only has the same meaning, but 
that it has the same use, or fills the same 
office, that belonged to circumcision. Of 
course, it has a wider application, as it be- 
longs to a broader and freer dispensation — 
one in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. IOI 

bond nor free, male nor female, but all are 
one in Christ. 

In confirmation of all this, I present the 
following: "And ye are complete in him, 
which is the head of all principality and 
power: in whom also ye are circumcised 
with the circumcision made without hands, 
in putting off the body of the sins of the 
flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried 
with him in baptism, wherein also ye are 
risen with him through the faith of the oper- 
ation of God, who hath raised him from the 
dead." (Colossians ii, 10-12.) Upon this I 
remark: 1. The subject is our completeness 
in Christ. 2. The allusion to circumcision is 
not to its outward form, but to its spiritual 
import. 3. The allusion to baptism is not 
to its mode, but to its signification. 4. The 
experience which is illustrated by these two 
rites is the same. 5. In this twofold illustra- 
tion of the same experience, the two rites are 
so blended and applied as to demonstrate the 
identity of their import. 6. The conclusion 
is that what circumcision was to the Jew, 
in its religious meaning, baptism is to the 
Christian. From this there is no escape. 



102 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

No enlargement upon the civil bearing of 
circumcision, or setting forth of specific dif- 
ferences between other features of the two 
rites, will be of any avail in setting aside 
the force of this argument. If baptism is 
the same to the Christian that circumcision 
was to the Jew; if it occupies the same place 
in the Church, and has the same religious 
meaning, use, and design; if it is the seal of 
the same spiritual blessings and privileges, 
there is no power in the universe to prevent 
unprejudiced minds from believing that bap- 
tism is just as appropriate, and in every way 
as suitable to infants now, as circumcision 
was under the law. The "circumcision made 
without hands" was represented by the cir- 
cumcision made with hands. It meant spir- 
itual regeneration. This is precisely what 
baptism represents. The "old man," "the 
body of the sins of the flesh," is "put off," 
"crucified," "dead," "buried" in baptism. 
This is the moral result which baptism sym- 
bolizes. By this process of spiritual regener- 
ation we are inducted into Christ, and being 
in him, the body of sin being destroyed, we 
set forth our union and completeness in him 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 103 

by baptism. The conclusion, the outcome 
of the argument, is inevitable. The Church 
is the same ; the covenant is the same ; the 
token is the same in religious meaning, and 
involves no religious element or principle not 
found in the old form, in which, by express 
command of God, it was given to infants. 

Here we conclude. The one Church is 
the body of Christ. It is the kingdom of 
heaven. It was begun as a visible organiza- 
tion in the family of Abraham, chartered by 
"the everlasting covenant' ' which God made 
with him who was to be the father of many 
nations. It continued to exist under the dis- 
pensation of the law, and survived the expi- 
ration of the law by limitation. It started 
into a new life under the Gospel, and will 
continue to be the Church and body of Christ 
until it shall be presented in the day of 
the Lord, a glorious Church, without spot or 
wrinkle or any such thing. God never had 
any other Church. Christ never redeemed 
any other Church. The Holy Ghost never 
quickened any other Church. National dis- 
tinctions are nothing here. This Church 
knows nothing of the kind. Questions of 



104 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

ecclesiastical rule are foreign to its essential 
being; they form none of its actual charac- 
teristics, and affect not its integrity as the 
Church of God. Forms of worship, and 
modes and ceremonies, can neither make nor 
destroy it. Denominational distinctions sink 
o-ut of sight in this presence. It is not the 
Jewish Church, nor the Christian Church. 
God never named his Church. His cove- 
nanted people are his Church. This is the 
only name given them as an association. 
There is nothing in the Scriptures about a 
Jewish or a Christian Church. The Church 
once existed principally among the Jews, but 
it was never a Jewish Church. It was never 
identical with the Jewish nation. Its ritual, 
under the Mosaic economy, should not be 
confounded with the civil polity of~the nation. 
Many Jews were not accepted in the "con- 
gregation of the Lord/' and many proselyted 
Gentiles were admitted to full fellowship. 
When the great body of the Jews were turned 
out, and the Gentiles called in, it did not be- 
come a Gentile Church. It was always God's 
Church, one and singular. Years after the full 
ushering in of the dispensation at Pentecost, 



THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. 105 

the disciples were called Christians at An- 
tioch — by whom, no one knows. The name 
was given in ignorance, and as an epithet of 
reproach, but was afterward accepted as an 
honorable title, and so continues. If God 
had intended to give an authoritative name, 
he would have done it at the beginning, at 
Jerusalem. I care not, then, for names or 
ceremonies ; nor am I concerned about changes 
in the government of the Church, in its form, 
its rites, or worship ; nor does it matter that 
every typical institution was forever dissolved: 
the great truth remains that God's Church 
was not abolished. It only passed from the 
bondage of pupilage to the freedom of ma- 
turity, carrying to this higher plane all the 
spiritual seed of Abraham, the heirs of 
promise. 



I06 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



Discourse IV. 

ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them," etc. — Matt, xxviii, 19. 

I PROPOSE, in this discourse, to trace the 
origin of infant baptism, and account for 
it as well as I can in the time at command; 
but we must first glance hastily at some objec- 
tions to the practice which have not yet come 
under consideration. 

It has been claimed that infants can not 
meet the design of the ordinance. Perhaps 
they could not fully, if they were always to 
remain infants; but the ordinance has refer- 
ence to their future lives. It is a covenant 
act, and is intended to cover the whole life 
of the person receiving it, whether he be bap- 
tized in infancy, in youth, or in manhood. 
The significance of the rite is by no means 
restricted to the hour of its administration. 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 107 

All the prayers and covenant forms adopted 
by the Church for this service contemplate 
the little ones as living, growing up, and 
being taught the nature of the ordinance 
and the obligations accompanying it. If 
they die in infancy, they are neither bene- 
fited nor harmed by baptism. In that event 
the design fails, of course, as life itself ceases 
and all earthly hopes fail; but, if they live, 
they can use their baptism, and make it the 
"answer of a good conscience" as well as 
if it were deferred until their mature years. 
The significance of the ordinance is met and 
kept fresh only by fulfilling the covenant 
engagements it implies. As, for instance, a 
young man, just entering the activities of 
manhood, accepts the Gospel and is baptized. 
He soon becomes involved in worldly pur- 
suits, neglects duty, loses faith, and goes out 
of the Church. He continues a worldly man 
for twenty, thirty, or forty years, and then 
remembers his early vows, and penitently re- 
turns to Christ and the Church. His baptism 
is not repeated. Its design and significance 
had been lost by disobedience; but these are 
revived by returning faith. Only carry this 



108 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

principle to the case of infants, and all is 
clear. If in after life they meet their cove- 
nant obligations, their baptism is as fresh and 
new and significant every morning as if just 
administered. As just remarked, it covers 
the whole life. 

Baptism is a significant rite. It points to 
something inward and spiritual. It is the or- 
dained emblem of salvation from sin, through 
the mediation of Jesus Christ, by the agency 
of the Holy Spirit. It is the ordinance of 
the Holy Ghost. It is designed to represent 
the whole office and work of the Spirit in the 
moral renovation of the soul. All the pro- 
vision made for the salvation of any human 
soul is in the death of Christ; and all the 
application of that provision to the salvation 
of the soul is by the Holy Spirit. In the 
Lord's-supper, the bread and wine are em- 
blems of the body and blood of Christ; 
and, in baptism, the water is the emblem of 
the Holy Spirit. All that are saved through 
Christ are saved by the agency of the Holy 
Spirit. Then, wherever the Holy Spirit goes 
in the functions of his office, there the water 
of baptism, the standing emblem, may go. 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. IO9 

But the Spirit applies the atoning blood to 
all dying in infancy; therefore such may be 
baptized. And the Spirit also applies the 
blood of Christ to the justification of all in- 
fants, so as to constitute them subjects of the 
kingdom of heaven. Hence the language of 
our Church: "We hold that all children, by 
virtue of the unconditional benefits of the 
atonement, are members of the kingdom of 
God, and therefore graciously entitled to bap- 
tism." Baptism is the emblem of the work 
of the Holy Spirit, and the seal of a gracious 
state. It is not an emblem or seal of faith; 
for then faith might be a prerequisite to bap- 
tism. It is not an emblem or seal of repent- 
ance; for then repentance might be deemed a 
qualification for baptism. Its emblematic use 
relates to the Spirit's work; and, as a seal, it 
marks our covenant relation and gracious ac- 
ceptance in the beloved. And this emblem- 
atic use may be anticipatory or reflective; 
but its relation to the Spirit is fixed and 
unalterable. 

It is urged that baptism implies an obliga- 
tion to die unto sin and live unto righteous- 
ness. So it does; but it is not baptism that 



IIO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

imposes the obligation. The obligation to a 
holy life is from the Lord, and imperative. 
Nor is it necessary to wait until the person 
grows up and violates this obligation, before 
giving him the ordinance which points to it. 
Baptism, as before remarked, is not designed 
merely for the hour of its administration. It 
stands as the emblem of the Spirit's work, 
reminding us of our impurities and need of 
cleansing all through life; and if it can retain 
its significancy for thirty, fifty, or seventy 
years, pointing with all the vividness of a 
newly received ordinance to the covenant ob- 
ligations which heaven has imposed, surely it 
does not lose its significancy by having been 
received before those obligations were felt. 

It is also objected that infant baptism in- 
terferes with the freedom of choice. Let us 
see, if we can, wherein. The obligations it 
implies exist, whether the child be baptized 
or not; and I do not see that any thing 
which God has left to choice is hindered or 
forestalled by infant baptism. We have no 
right to choose whether we will be baptized 
or not; for baptism is duty, and to refuse 
to be baptized is an abuse of the power 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 1 1 

of choice; therefore, when parents supersede 
the choice of their children in this regard by 
having them baptized in infancy, there is no 
right violated or infringed. Our ideas of the 
right of choice in matters pertaining to relig- 
ion are often crude, and, unless guarded, will 
take unwarranted directions. The right of 
choice can only relate to modes and forms 
and things indifferent in themselves. The ob- 
ligation to be baptized, and to do all the 
things that baptism implies, is not optional 
with us, but duty in the highest sense; and 
baptism, whenever received, points to the 
duty. Nor does infant baptism hinder any 
one from the performance of any service that 
the Lord requires. It leaves the conscience 
perfectly free, to the full extent to which God 
has invested it with freedom. Not a single 
burden does it impose which God has not 
imposed; and not a single fetter does it bind 
on the soul to cramp it, or to hinder it in 
coming freely to Christ, or to interfere with 
its doing from the heart any duty pertaining 
to the Christian life. How, then, does it in- 
terfere with choice in any thing that is left to 
choice? 



112 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

This objection proves too much, if it prove ' 
any thing. If baptism in infancy interferes 
with choice, heart-work, or free action in any 
respect that violates rights, how much more 
does early religious education! The opposers 
of infant baptism will take hold of the tender, 
unsophisticated minds of their little ones, and 
instill into them thoughts, sentiments, princi- 
ples, biases, and prejudices, and such peculiar 
views of religion as will influence and control 
them, and be as permanent as the mind itself. 
They hesitate not to take advantage of their 
children's ignorance and tenderness, and of 
their susceptibility to parental influence, to 
mold their religious character and direct their 
conduct and determine their Church relations, 
without any regard to their choice, or to what 
might afterward become their choice; and in 
all this they do right. No matter if in this 
way they impress upon their children views 
and principles, and bind upon their souls a 
set of notions, that will cleave to them in 
time and in eternity. They have the right 
to do so, and need only be careful to teach 
them the truth and commit them to the right. 
The responsibility to do all this is on the 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 113 

parents; and there is an important sphere in 
which parents must act for their children — 
must think for them, control them, and do 
all they can to commit them to a life of obe- 
dience to God. How comes it, then, that 
they may teach their children, control them, 
and impress upon them lessons that will de- 
termine their whole future, and yet, if they 
enter them into God's covenant, and place 
upon them the badge of recognition in the 
Church, and thereby dedicate them to God's 
service, they are interfering with the rights 
of conscience or the freedom of choice? This 
objection, when simmered down to its proper 
substance, has nothing in it whatever. If 
there is any violation of rights in this con- 
nection, it is on the other side. Those who 
refuse to baptize the children, refuse them 
the privilege of recognition among the cove- 
nanted people of God. They refuse to re- 
ceive them in the name of the Redeemer! 
They deny them a place in the kingdom of 
God! And then they cry out to us, as if by 
baptizing them, and thus bringing them into 
recognition as lambs in the Redeemer's fold, 
and placing upon them the mark or seal of 

8 



114 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

God's gracious covenant, as Abraham did, we 
were robbing them of some precious rights! 
But what right of choice in regard to bap- 
tism do anti-Pedobaptists give their children 
after they grow up? Do they allow them to 
choose the mode? Do they allow them any 
choice whatever other than to come to bap- 
tism in a certain form or stay away from all 
sacraments and Church privileges? 

But it is insisted that the Scriptures make 
faith a prerequisite to baptism. This has been 
answered in part; but now I wish to remark 
that the Scriptures never make faith a pre- 
requisite to baptism in any instance except 
where it is a prerequisite to salvation. In 
the case of unbaptized adults, who must re- 
pent and believe the Gospel in order to sal- 
vation, faith is properly required in order to 
baptism; but then the baptism relates to the 
salvation, and not to the faith. It is not a 
symbol of faith, nor a seal of faith, nor does 
it in any way represent faith, but only the 
salvation which faith secures. Then, wher- 
ever the salvation is, there baptism may 
go; and every argument that would deprive 
the infant of baptism for the want of faith, 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 115 

would deprive it of salvation on the same 
ground. 

But the passage in the great commission 
on which this objection is founded does not 
sustain it. In so far as the application to 
adults is concerned, we shall not dispute; 
but the language, rightly understood, is in 
complete harmony with infant baptism; and, 
addressed to the apostles, as it was, it would 
authorize, them to practice infant baptism, in 
the absence of any prohibition, as we shall 
shortly see. But now I direct attention to 
the fact that the commission does not fix the 
relative order of baptism and faith. It re- 
quires both, but does not say which shall 
come first. In Matthew xxviii, 19, the read- 
ing is, "Go ye therefore, and teach (matJie- 
teusate, disciple) all nations, baptizing them." 
The first thing to do is to "disciple the na- 
tions/' and this by baptizing them. In Mark 
xvi, 15, 16, the reading is: "Go ye into all 
the world, and preach the Gospel to every 
creature. He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall 
be damned." The baptized believer shall be 
saved. Who is he? He that believes, and 



Il6 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

keeps the covenant obligations of his baptism. 
But what about the order? "He that be- 
lieveth, having been baptized, shall be saved," 
is the literal rendering. The participial form 
of the verb, baptistheis, with the aorist tense, 
fully justifies this rendering. Then, the rela- 
tive order of the believing and being bap- 
tized is not definitely fixed. The time of the 
baptism is not specified ; so I come back to 
the point, that the act of faith is not a pre- 
requisite to baptism, only where it is to sal- 
vation; and when the baptism precedes the 
faith, as with infants, the full demand of the 
general commission is met. And when in- 
fants are "discipled " by baptism, and then 
taught, the order of the commission, as given 
by Matthew, is literally kept. 

And, now, I assume that the apostles 
would baptize the children, under this com- 
mission, unless prohibited by express instruc- 
tion to the contrary. 

I argue this, not from the rendering al- 
ready given to the command to baptize the 
nations, but from their habits and impressions 
as Jews. They knew that children had been 
associated with their parents in covenant and 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 117 

Church relations ever since the days of 
Abraham, and they had never known a 
Church from which the little ones were ex- 
cluded. They were familiar with the fact 
that, under the Old Testament, the rite of 
circumcision was given them as a religious 
act. Therefore they could not have been 
prejudiced against infant membership ; and 
they certainly had not forgotten the Master's 
teaching in regard to the relation of infants 
to the kingdom of God. All these facts 
would predispose them toward infant bap- 
tism. But more than this. They were fa- 
miliar with the religious use of water, in all 
those services among the Jews which gave 
rise to the practice of baptisms. In a word, 
they were accustomed to baptism, as it had 
been practiced in their nation for some hun- 
dreds of years; and to the baptism of infants 
as well as adults. The numerous "wash- 
ings" imposed by the law, including cere- 
monial purifications after touching the dead, 
and after contact with unclean persons, and 
in the performance of religious duties, were 
called baptisms, long before the coming of 
Christ. These are the "divers baptisms," 



Il8 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

translated " divers washings/' in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews. To these must be added 
the ceremonial baptisms enjoined by tradi- 
tion, which the Jews regarded with equal 
respect, and observed with punctilious care- 
fulness. It is to these " baptisms'' the Sa- 
vior alludes, when he says, Mark vii, 3, 4 : 
"For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except 
they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding 
the tradition of the elders. And when they 
come from market, except they wash (bapti- 
sontai) they eat not. And many other things 
there be, which they have received to hold, 
as the washing {baptismons) of cups, and pots, 
and brazen vessels, and tables." Now, these 
baptisms, although possessing no higher au- 
thority than tradition, had taken such hold 
on the mind of the Jewish nation, that all 
classes were familiar with them, and they 
would inevitably give color to any general 
command the Savior would give to baptize 
the people, preparatory to instructing them 
in the doctrines and duties of a holy life. 

And to all this — in order to reach the sur- 
roundings of the apostles, and the influences 
arising from familiar customs that would affect 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 119 

• 
their minds in the interpretation of the gen- 
eral command to baptize — must be added the 
ancient and continued practice of baptizing 
proselytes and their families, including infant 
children. 

This brings up the question of proselyte 
baptism — a question which has not always 
been fairly treated. The opposers of infant 
baptism have labored to throw discredit on 
the testimony that supports it, mainly because 
Josephus and Philo say nothing about it. But 
these authors did not write on subjects that 
necessarily involved that question, and we 
might as well infer, from their silence, that it 
was so common and well understood as to 
escape mention in that way, as that they 
knew nothing about it. Much, also, is said 
in opposition, about the absurdity or unrea- 
sonableness of supposing our Lord and Savior 
learned his doctrines, and received his insti- 
tutions, from the Jews, or any other human 
source. But this difficulty is all imaginary, 
and creates a false issue. When we appeal 
to the practices which were familiar, we do 
not intimate that Jesus Christ learned from 
them, or founded his institutions upon them; 



120 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

nor do we suppose that, so far as he adopted 
them, or allowed his disciples to follow them, 
he attached to them the same meaning, in 
every respect, that the Jews did. But that 
he did take baptism as an existing Jewish 
practice, and give it a new application, is 
known beyond question. And that he took 
the Jewish feast of the Passover, and changed 
it slightly in form, and turned it into the per- 
petual memorial of his death, is well known. 
And it is known that he adopted no new form 
of worship for the congregations of his people, 
but allowed them to follow the customs of 
the synagogues in this important respect. 
Then, why should we not suppose that the 
custom of the Jews, with reference to the 
baptism of proselytes, would affect the minds 
of the apostles, in construing and applying 
the words of the general commission to " dis- 
ciple the nations, baptizing them?" There 
is not only no reason for disallowing this, 
but the highest reason for it; and this is all 
we claim in our appeal to proselyte baptism. 
We do not argue that it is right for us be- 
cause the Jews practiced it; nor that Christ 
learned it from them ; nor that he founded 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 121 

his command on their custom; but, simply, 
that he and his disciples were familiar with 
it, as a Jewish rite, and that, in adapting 
baptism to the Gospel purpose, he took it as 
he found it, gave a new meaning and appli- 
cation to it, and yet that he did not prohibit 
its application to infants. And we hold that 
this fact, in connection with his own recog- 
nition of infants as "of the kingdom, " and 
his command that they be "received in his 
name," and calling them believers, and the 
other fact that they had always been in the 
covenant, by circumcision, would influence 
the apostles in favor of infant baptism ; so 
that, without a positive prohibition, they 
would practice it, under the command to 
disciple all nations. 

It is now generally admitted by the learned 
that the Jews practiced infant baptism in re- 
ceiving the families of Gentiles that were 
proselyted to the Jewish religion. The evi- 
dence of this fact is cumulative, and of suffi- 
cient force to satisfy such men as Selden, Light- 
foot, Wall, Dantz, Wetstein, Beza, Buxtorf, 
Witsius, and many others, men of the highest 
repute for learning, who have examined the 



122 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

subject thoroughly, from the most original 
sources. Some others, of good standing for 
general learning, express doubts ; but those 
doubts are connected with erroneous views 
of the uses made of the fact, or with evident 
lack of thorough examination. The decided 
preponderance of testimony is in favor of the 
antiquity of the practice, when Christ taught 
in the Temple and synagogues of the Jews. 
The Talmudic writings of the Jews speak of 
this practice, and some look upon it as com- 
ing down from the days of Jacob. The 
Mishna, which dates back to near the time 
of Christ, and is a faithful compilation of older 
Jewish writings and oral traditions, and un- 
questionably gives the most accurate and 
minute ideas of the Jewish doctrines and re- 
ligious rites accessible, gives testimony to the 
practice of baptizing infants. The Talmud 
of Babylon says: "When a proselyte is re- 
ceived, he must be circumcised: and when he 
is cured they baptize him in the presence of 
two wise men, saying, 'Behold, he is an Is- 
raelite in all things. " The Jerusalem Mishna 
says that "if a girl, born of heathen parents, 
be made a proselyte after she be three years 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 23 

and a day old," then she is not to have such 
and such privileges. The Babylonian Mishna 
says, "If she be made a proselyte before that 
age, she shall have the said privileges. " The 
Gemara, which is a Jewish Commentary on 
the Mishna, says, "They are wont to baptize 
such in infancy, upon the profession of the 
house of judgment, for this is for its good." * 
The Gemara of Babylon also says, "The 
proselytes entered into covenant by circum- 
cision, baptism, and sprinkling of blood." 

The fact in question is not only established 
by the direct testimony of the Jews them- 
selves, but by the indirect allusions of others. 
According to Dr. Lardner, Epictetus lived 
and wrote A. D. IC9, and according to Le 
Clerc, some five years earlier; and being 
about sixty years old at the time, his per- 
sonal information reached back to the times 
of the apostles. In reproving those who 
professed to be philosophers, and did not live 
according to their profession, Epictetus says: 
' ' Why do you call yourself a stoic ? Why 
do you deceive the multitude? Why do you 
pretend to be a Greek when you are a Jew, a 
* Wall. 



124 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Syrian, an Egyptian? And when we see one 
wavering, w r e are wont to say, This is not a 
Jew, but acts one. But when he assumes 
the sentiments of one who hath been bap- 
tized and circumcised, then he both really is 
and is called a Jew. Thus we, falsifying our 
profession, are Jews in name, but in reality 
something else. ,, This allusion to baptism 
in connection with circumcision, and assuming 
the sentiments of the Jews, shows it to be a 
clear recognition of the Jewish custom of 
baptizing proselytes, and, being only inci- 
dental, is so much the more convincing. Al- 
though it does not mention infants, it bears 
on the main question of proselyte baptism ; 
and all concede that the notions of the Jews 
respecting "clean" and "unclean" persons 
would compel them to baptize the children 
with the parents, if that was really their way 
of cleansing proselytes from the defilements 
of paganism. Maimonides, the great inter- 
preter of Jewish law, who lived in the twelfth 
century, and wrote without any bias of mind 
on this subject, but simply as an expounder 
of the sacred customs of his people, gives 
explicit testimony. He says: "Israel was 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 25 

admitted into covenant by three things; 
namely, by circumcision, baptism, and sacri- 
fice. Baptism was in the wilderness before 
the giving of the law." Again: "Abundance 
of proselytes were made in the days of David 
and Solomon, before private men; and the 
great Sanhedrim was full of care about this 
business; for they would not cast them out 
of the Church, because they were baptized." 
(Issure Biah., c. 43.) "Once more, when- 
ever any heathen . . . will take the 
yoke of the law upon him, circumcision, 
baptism, and a voluntary oblation, are re- 
quired. . . . That was a common ax- 
iom, no man is a proselyte until he be cir- 
cumcised and baptized." (Jevamoth, fol. 46.) 
Maimonides says, further: "They baptize 
also young children. They baptize a little 
proselyte according to the judgment of the 
Sanhedrim ; that is, as the gloss renders it, if 
he be deprived of his father, and his mother 
brings him to be made a proselyte, they bap- 
tize him (because none becomes a proselyte 
without circumcision and baptism) according 
to the judgment, or rite, of the Sanhedrim; 
that is, that three men be present at the 



126 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

baptism, who are now instead of a father to 
him. And the Gemara a little after says, if 
with a proselyte his sons and his daughters 
are made proselytes also, that which is done 
by their father redounds to their good." "If 
an Israelite find a Gentile child, or a Gentile 
infant, and baptize him . . . behold, he 
is a proselyte. " (Maim, in Avid. c. 8.) 

It is conceded that the Jews practiced 
proselyte baptism immediately after the apos- 
tolic day. We therefore properly inquire 
concerning the origin of the practice among 
them. Were they in condition to adopt new 
customs, and especially in regard to pros- 
elyting, now that their Temple and city were 
in ruins, and the glory of their nationality 
and religion was prostrate in the dust, and 
they the scattered and peeled people which 
they became after the destruction of their 
city by the Romans? At the time of Christ, 
and before his day, the spirit of proselyting 
ran high. To this the Savior alluded in his 
withering rebuke, Matthew xxiii, 15: "Woe 
unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! 
for ye compass sea and land to make one 
proselyte; and when he is made, ye make 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 27 

him twofold more a child of hell than your- 
selves. " Their religion was then popular, 
and they were in condition to make prose- 
lytes, and did it; but in a few years all was 
changed with them. In laying down the 
conditions of discipleship, it is well known 
that Christ had particular reference to the 
conditions of receiving proselytes among the 
Jews; so that there can be no doubt that he 
adapted to his use all that was capable of 
adaptation in their practices. It is some- 
times averred that the Jews copied baptism 
from John, who was a Jew, and was looked 
upon by the Jews as a prophet of their own. 
But they could not copy infant baptism from 
John, unless John himself practiced it, to 
admit which is as fatal as to concede the 
whole ground. The fact that John's baptism 
created no surprise to the Jews, and elicited 
no inquiry as to its meaning, but did impress 
them that he was a prophet, shows that they 
understood the rite, and expected a divinely 
commissioned teacher to practice it. Hence, 
the Jews went to John, not to ask the mean- 
ing of a new and unknown practice, but to 
ask, " Who art tliouV and upon being told 



128 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

that he was not the Christ, nor Elias, nor 
that prophet for whom they were looking, 
they ask, ' ' Why baptizest thou then, if thou 
be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that 
prophet ?" Here is satisfactory evidence that 
the Jews were acquainted with the rite, and 
that it was employed in making disciples. In 
addition to this, it must be borne in mind 
that the Jewish washings were called baptisms 
by themselves and by the sacred writers; so 
that the proof is positive that the Jews prac- 
ticed baptism among themselves, and sup- 
posed it derived from the law of Moses. 
Then we must still add the fact that the law 
enjoined the same practice with regard to 
proselytes that they observed themselves. 
The following is the law: "One ordinance 
shall be both for you of the congregation, 
and also for the stranger that sojourneth with 
you [proselyte], an ordinance forever in your 
generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger 
be before the Lord. One law and one man- 
ner shall be for you, and for the stranger that 
sojourneth with you/' (Numbers xv, 15, 16.) 
Now, if in the days of Christ the Jews called 
their watery ablutions baptisms, and if they 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 29 

washed proselytes from pagan defilements, as 
they must before associating with them, then 
we have proselyte baptism fairly deduced from 
the law. No matter if the word baptize is 
not in the law. The thing which the Jews, 
in the natural changes of their language from 
Hebrew to Greek, and their mingling with 
other peoples after their captivity in Babylon, 
called baptism, and practiced under that name, 
is in the law; and the law was the same with 
themselves and the proselytes. 

But not only did the Jews not manifest 
surprise or betray ignorance of the rite when 
John began to baptize, but they readily sub- 
mitted to it. To my mind, the readiness 
with which the whole people of the Jews, 
of all classes and all professions, lawyers, 
soldiers, tradesmen, from the city and the 
country, from the mountains and the deserts, 
flocked to John's baptism, asking nothing of 
its origin or history, but only its design, is 
an overwhelming argument in favor * of the 
proposition that baptism was familiar to all 
the Jews. This fact, with the designation of 
Jewish washings under the law as "divers 
baptisms," in Hebrews ix, 10, and the des- 

9 



130 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

ignation by the Savior of their ceremonial 
washings after returning from market as bap- 
tisms, presents the matter not merely in the 
light of reasonable inference, but in the light 
of unquestionable proof; and I feel justified 
in claiming that the proof is so clear and 
striking that it can not be put aside by any 
easy expressions of doubt. 

Then, again, as before remarked, there is 
no disputing the fact that the Jews practiced 
baptism — infant baptism, too — in a short time 
after the apostolic age. Whence did they de- 
rive the practice? They did not learn it from 
pagans, for pagans did nothing of the kind ; 
and their national repugnance to paganism 
forbids the idea that they copied it from hea- 
then ceremonies. Nor is it likely that they 
copied it from the Christian Church. To as- 
sume this is to concede the practice in the 
Church to have a close proximity to apostolic 
times. But the violent antagonism between 
Christianity and Judaism forbids any such as- 
sumption. The truth is, the origin of the 
practice, among Jews or Christians, is abso- 
lutely unaccountable except on the hypoth- 
esis here presented. The opposition have 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 131 

never been able to find a period in the his- 
tory of Judaism or Christianity when infant 
baptism was certainly unknown or rejected; 
and no reasonable hypothesis has ever been 
devised to account for its origin as an innova- 
tion, while the whole line of concurrent tra- 
dition, with Judaism and Christianity, assigns 
it an origin in the imperative requirements of 
the law, long anterior to the time of Christ. 
The probabilities in favor of the correctness 
of this account of its origin are at least as a 
thousand to one. Indeed, when the full force 
of the cumulative testimony is gathered into 
one view and compared w r ith the utter bar- 
renness of the opposing assumptions, I see 
not how candid minds, accustomed to balanc- 
ing probabilities and weighing testimony, can 
possibly be in doubt. All the conditions are 
favorable to this view, while enough of the 
factors in the problem are substantiated by 
testimony to render the conclusion neltt to 
inevitable. . 

The proofs of ancient proselyte baptism 
are so overwhelming that not only the most 
learned men who were unprejudiced have 
accepted it, as we have seen, but even. Mr. 



132 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Booth, a distinguished Baptist writer, has 
been constrained to admit that "the children 
of proselytes were probably baptized along 
with their parents." Stackhouse says: "The 
custom of the Jews, in all ages, has been to 
receive their heathen proselytes by baptism, 
as well as by sacrifice and circumcision." 
Dr. A. Clarke, Calmet, Witsius, Wall, and 
many others affirm the same; and here I 
present, by way of conclusion on this point, 
the language of Dr. Woods, quoted by Dr. 
Hibbard, not for the authority of these names, 
but for the argument so clearly presented: 

"First. The rabbins unanimously assert that 
the baptism of proselytes had been practiced 
by the Jews in all ages, from Moses down 
to the time they wrote. Now, these writers 
must have been sensible that their contempora- 
ries, both Jews and Christians, knew whether 
such a practice had been prevalent or not; 
and, tiad it been known that no such practice 
existed, would not some Jew havebeen found 
bold enough to contradict such a groundless 
assertion of the rabbins? At least, would 
there not have been some Christians, fired 
with the love of truth, and jealous for the 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 33 

honor of a sacred rite first instituted by Christ, 
who would have exposed to shame those who 
falsely asserted that a similar rite had existed 
for more than "a thousand years? But neither 
of these things was done. 

"Second. Had not the Jews been accus- 
tomed to baptize proselytes previously to the 
Christian era, it is extremely improbable that 
they would have adopted the practice after- 
ward ; for their contempt and hatred of Chris- 
tianity exceeded all bounds, and must have 
kept them at the greatest possible distance 
from copying a rite peculiar to Christians. 

"Third. It seems to have been perfectly 
consistent and proper for the Jews to baptize 
proselytes; for their divine ritual enjoined 
various purifications by washing or baptism; 
and, as they considered all Gentiles to be 
unclean, how could they do otherwise than 
understand the divine law to require that 
when any of them should be proselyted to 
the Jewish religion, they should receive the 
same sign of purification as was, in so many 
cases, applied to themselves ?" 

Now, the proposition with which we started 
was that the apostles would baptize whole 



134 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

families, including infants, under the general 
commission, unless prohibited by positive in- 
struction, which prohibition was never laid 
upon them. Dr. Lightfoot presents this point 
so forcibly that I introduce his words: "To 
the objection, It is not commanded to baptize 
infants, therefore they are not to be baptized, 
I answer: It is not forbidden to baptize in- 
fants, therefore they are to be baptized. And 
the reason is plain; for, when Pedobaptism in 
the Jewish Church was so known, usual, and 
frequent in the admission of proselytes that 
nothing almost was more known, usual, and 
frequent, there was no need to strengthen it 
with any precept, when baptism was now 
passed into an evangelical sacrament. For 
Christ took baptism into his hands and into 
evangelical use as he found it, this only added 
that he might promote it to a worthier end 
and a larger use. The whole nation knew 
well enough that little children used to be 
baptized; there was no need of a precept 
for that which had ever by common use pre- 
vailed. . . . On the other hand, therefore, 
there was need of a plain and open prohibi- 
tion that infants and little children should not 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 1 35 

be baptized, if our Lord would not have them 
baptized; for, since it was most common in 
all preceding ages that little children should 
be baptized, if Christ had been minded to 
have that custom abolished, he would have 
openly forbidden it; therefore his silence and 
the silence of Scripture in this matter confirms 
Pedobaptism, and continues it to all ages/' To 
this I need only add that the argument, as 
now developed, is not based on the silence 
of the Scriptures alone, but on the positive 
proofs of ancient customs, in connection with a 
broad command to disciple all nations, which 
covers the whole ground, and requires this 
wide application, unless positively restricted. 
The silence of the Scriptures, in regard to 
restricting this universal commission, is the 
silence which speaks with such eloquent sig- 
nificance in this discussion. 

We have the right, in view of the facts 
now presented, to claim that infant baptism 
is not a separate and distinct rite, requiring a 
positive precept for its introduction into the 
Church under the Gospel, as its enemies con- 
tinually imply. It is involved in the com- 
mission to baptize; and it devolves on the 



I36 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

opposition to show either that infants are ex- 
cepted from the commission, or that the rite 
now, in its new relation, involves a principle 
or condition that renders it inapplicable to 
them. This has been undertaken; and we 
considered the strength of the position, in 
noticing the objections, at the beginning of 
this discourse. That the undertaking has 
failed must be manifest to all who intelli- 
gently weigh the testimony in the case. 



HISTORICAL ARCxUMENT. 1 37 



Discourse V. 

HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 

"And I baptized also the household of Stephanas." — 
1 Cor. 1, 16. 

I PURPOSE no extended argument on the 
subject of household or family baptisms, 
but remark that the incidental allusions 
thereto, in the Acts and Epistles, are just 
such as might be expected, if the practice 
was common, and had been familiar to all 
classes for many years. The record on this 
subject is not such as it would have been if 
the institution had been entirely new, and 
there had been a set purpose to establish its 
validity by this method of indicating apos- 
tolic practice. In that case, there would have 
been, in all probability, a special mention of 
infants, as composing in part the household. 
But, as was shown in the preceding discourse, 
the practice was not new; the Jews were 



138 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

familiar with it; they had practiced family 
baptisms, in admitting proselytes, for many 
years, including children of all ages; so that, 
to them, the general statement that a house- 
hold had been baptized would convey the 
idea that the children were included. 

In the three cases of household baptisms 
mentioned in the New Testament, there is no 
direct mention of children; nor is there any 
thing that would prevent the supposition that 
there were children in some or all the fam- 
ilies. The mention of a family, or house- 
hold, naturally suggests the idea of children 
of different ages, yet under parental control; 
for such is the normal family, and such, we 
may say, is the average family, in almost 
any country. But here are three families, 
not selected for a purpose, nor specially de- 
scribed as being unlike the average families, 
in which baptism was administered; so that 
the allusion to the fact corresponds exactly 
to what we would expect to be said if the 
family baptism had corresponded in all re- 
spects to the ancient custom of baptizing 
households proselyted to Judaism. The rec- 
ord, to say the least, is very loose, and well 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 139 

calculated to mislead, if it is not lawful to 
baptize the average family; and more partic- 
ularly is this true, when we take into account 
the habits and customs of the times, when 
family baptisms, including infants, were very 
common, and very familiar to all the people. 
We can not, indeed, with any show of reason, 
affirm positively that there were no children 
in either of these families; nor can we doubt 
that these are more than illustrations of 
apostolic practice. These three instances are 
incidentally mentioned in connection with 
Paul's own ministry, not intimating that they 
are all the family baptisms that occurred 
under his ministry, nor saying any thing 
about instances of a similar kind in the min- 
istry of the other apostles. The fact of 
family baptisms, in apostolic practice, is be- 
fore us, and under all the circumstances of 
the case this fact is decidedly favorable to 
the view we have taken of the interpretation 
of the general commission to " disciple the 
nations, baptizing them," which the apostles 
would most probably make, under the cir- 
cumstances. 

And with these remarks on apostolic 



140 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 

practice, I now turn attention to the histor- 
ical argument on this subject. We have 
given a rational account of the origin of 
infant baptism, among the Jews, prior to the 
Christian era, and substantial proof of its 
prevalence when Christ began his ministry; 
and we have found no word or act or hint, 
from him or his apostles, in opposition to it, 
but, on the contrary, much that can not be 
explained except as favorable to the practice ; 
and we have seen clearly that the principles 
on which the Church is founded, and the 
covenant which is its divinely given charter, 
all sanction the recognition of the little ones 
as of the covenant and of the kingdom, so 
that a positive prohibition of their baptism 
was nQcessary to prevent it under the general 
commission : and now, if we trace the prac- 
tice in the Church to a point so near the 
apostolic age that the idea of its spring- 
ing up after their day as an innovation is 
utterly unreasonable and preposterous, we 
shall have so far gained the argument that, 
unless the opposition give a better account 
of its origin among the Jews, and show a 
positive prohibition of it in the Scriptures, 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 141 

or else prove its origin as an innovation in 
the Church, the only conclusion which will 
accord with reason is that infant baptism was 
authorized by Christ, and sanctioned by apos- 
tolical usage. 

I do not appeal to tradition or history as 
primary authority for this practice, but only 
as collateral evidence, having bearing upon 
our judgment as to what was the practice of 
the apostles. Nothing is asked or based upon 
the opinions of the post-apostolic fathers. 
They were men, weak and fallible like our- 
selves, but they were honest and competent 
witnesses in a question of fact, with which they 
were conversant ; and it is only as witnesses 
of fact that I propose to examine their testi- 
mony. Nor can I more than indicate the 
line and substance of the argument. 

Infant baptism exists in the Church, and 
is interwoven with the history of the Church 
from the earliest days. It had a beginning. 
Some one must have baptized the first infant. 
But neither the fact, nor the occasion of its 
origin, can be found this side the days of the 
apostles. Baptism was unquestionably ad- 
ministered to infants as near the apostolic 



I42 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

age as history can take us, and it was admin- 
istered by the great body of the Church, 
without murmur, complaint, or debate. For 
the space of eleven hundred years after the 
birth of Christ, there was not a single society 
of Christians, on the face of the earth, that 
called in question the propriety of infant bap- 
tism, on any ground or plea whatever; and it 
was not opposed on the ground now taken 
against it by anti-Pedobaptists for fifteen hun- 
dred years after the Christian era. At the 
present time, all the great branches of the 
Church baptize infants — Greek, Coptic, Ro- 
man Catholic, and Protestant — except those 
denominations which have, in modern times, 
fallen into the notion that immersion is the 
only baptism; and all these have practiced it 
from the beginning of their history. Go back 
to the twelfth century, and the practice was 
universal. Go back to the sixth century, and 
the same is true. Go back to the third cent- 
ury, and there is not a syllable of testimony 
that any Church in the world refused to bap- 
tize infants. Then, if it was an innovation, 
brought into the Church without authority 
from the apostles, there ought to be at least 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 1 43 

some record, somewhere, that would indicate 
the existence of agitation or debate, or that 
would show some reason for its acceptance. 
But there is not to be found the slightest 
trace of any agitation, surprise, defense, 
apology, or debate, to show that any one 
questioned the apostolical authorization of 
the practice. Innovations were introduced 
in those times, but not without opposition. 
The use and worship of pictures may be 
taken as an example. This innovation gained 
a footing, and made rapid progress in the 
Church; but it excited warm debate, and the 
agitation continued for about eight hundred 
years. Then, it seems reasonable to suppose 
that, if the baptism of infants started up as a 
novelty, and spread throughout the Christian 
world, just at the time other novelties were 
being so hotly debated, there ought to be de- 
tected, somewhere in the controversial writings 
of the Fathers, some sort of allusion to the fact, 
that could be construed to show that somebody 
knew that it was an innovation. But we search 
all these in vain for any such allusion. On 
the contrary, we find in those writings a state 
of facts utterly irreconcilable with any other 



144 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

hypothesis than that the whole Church, at 
that time, fully believed the practice to have 
descended from the founders of Christianity, 
with divine sanction. It is that the writers 
of the second and third and fourth centuries 
engaged in earnest theological disputations, 
on subjects which involved the practice of 
infant baptism, and required the expression 
of opinions respecting its import and useful- 
ness, and the reasons for its existence; and 
yet, in their warmest controversies, while 
they alluded to it, and spoke of its bearing 
on the points in dispute, not one of them 
called in question its descent from the apos- 
tles, or hinted at a different origin. 

Passing over the explicit testimonies, di- 
rect and indirect, of a later date, connected 
with the Pelagian controversy, I begin with 
the well-known fact which has often been 
cited in this controversy, and proves beyond 
question the universality of infant baptism in 
the Church at the period to which it belongs. 
I refer to the discussion of the subject in the 
Council of Carthage. In the . year of our 
Lord 253, sixty-six bishops of the Church 
were assembled in Council, in the city of 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 145 

Carthage. This Council represented very 
nearly, if not quite, the whole Christian 
world, and undoubtedly reflected the senti- 
ments of the Church in every part of the 
earth. One feature of infant baptism came 
before that body for consideration, and was 
discussed and passed upon; but it was not 
any thing that implied a doubt as to the 
divine authority for the practice, or of its 
universality in the Church. The subject was 
brought up by one Fidus, an obscure country 
bishop, who was probably not at the Council, 
but asked of it a decision of the question 
whether it was necessary to delay the baptism 
of the child until the eighth day after its 
birth, making the law of circumcision the 
rule governing the time of baptism. This 
question was entertained in the Council, and 
a decision rendered, which decision we now 
have. The Council answered Fidus thus: 

"We read your letter, dearest brother, in 
which you write of one Victor, a priest, etc. 
. . . But as to the case of infants: whereas 
you judge that they must not be baptized 
within two or three days after they are born; 

and that the rule of circumcision is to be 

10 



146 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

observed, so that none should be baptized or 
sanctified before the eighth day after he is 
born; we were all, in our assembly, of the 
contrary opinion. For, as for what you 
thought fitting to be done, there was not one 
of your mind ; but all of us, on the contrary, 
judged that the grace and mercy of God is 
to be denied to no person that is born." 

This is a remarkable paper, in some re- 
spects; and on the single point of the uni- 
versality of infant baptism, at the date of that 
Council, it is conclusive. Just think of it. 
Here, in A. D. 253, within one hundred and 
sixty years of the time when the apostle 
John was yet in the ministry, in so large an 
assembly of chief ministers, representing so 
large a part of Christendom, there is not a 
single voice against infant baptism, and not 
one in favor of delaying the rite till the child 
is eight days old! This fact proclaims with 
tremendous emphasis the universality of the 
practice, and the utter absence of doubt with 
respect to its authority. If the practice had 
been of recent origin, or of questionable au- 
thority, or limited acceptance in the Church, 
it is inconceivable that such a council, with 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 147 

the learned Cyprian as one of its members, 
could have rendered such a decision, with 
such unanimity. These bishops were not 
careless respecting innovations, nor were the 
Fathers of the Church that preceded them. 
Indeed, there seems to have been among them 
a peculiar sensitiveness concerning the intro- 
duction of novelties. They cherished intense 
veneration for the example of those who had 
seen the Lord on earth, and stood guard over 
the institutions transmitted to them, watching 
with jealous eye every departure from estab- 
lished usage; and, although they did not 
always succeed in preventing abuses, they 
produced agitation, at least, upon every vio- 
lation of apostolic example. Every innovation 
created disturbance; but we read of no dis- 
turbance on this subject. 

The first opposition to infant baptism, of 
which we have any knowledge, was by Ter- 
tullian, an eccentric genius, who flourished 
about the close of the second century and 
the beginning of the third. He was made 
presbyter in the Church of Carthage, A. D. 
192. He wrote much that was useful on 
moral subjects, and in defense of Christianity, 



I48 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

but was always distinguished for erratic no- 
tions in speculative matters. His opposition 
to infant baptism was one of his freaks, and 
proves its existence and general prevalence, 
and the absence from his mind of any settled 
convictions hostile to the rite. So far from 
this, he recognized it as based on the teach- 
ings of Christ, and opposed it only on pru- 
dential grounds. He never objected to it as 
an innovation upon primitive usage, nor as a 
thing improper in itself; but, having imbibed 
erroneous views of the design of baptism, his 
opposition grew out of his own wrong ideas. 
Like some of our own day, Tertullian had 
fallen into the notion that baptism was a 
condition of pardon, or that, instead of being 
an emblematic washing, it was a real washing 
away of sin ; and he had reached the conclu- 
sion that sins committed after baptism pos- 
sessed peculiar heinousness, if they could be 
forgiven at all: so he advised that baptism 
be delayed till late in life. His object was 
to wash away the sins of a life-time at one 
baptism. In this he was consistent as well 
as prudent — only he did not consistently 
adhere to this ground, but sometimes urged 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 149 

baptism without delay. We will hear some 
of his reasoning on the subject: 

4 'But they whose duty it is to administer 
baptism are to know that it must not be 
given rashly. 'Give to every one that ask- 
eth thee' has its proper subject, and relates 
to almsgiving; but that command rather is to 
be here considered, ' Give not that which is 
holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls 
before swine;' and, 'Lay hands suddenly on 
no man, neither be partakers of other men's 
faults.' Therefore, according to every one's 
condition and disposition, and also their age, 
the delaying of baptism is more profitable, 
especially in the case of little children; for 
what need is there that the godfathers should 
be brought into danger? Because they may 
either fail of their promise by death, or they 
may be mistaken by a child's proving of a 
wicked disposition. Our Lord says, indeed, 
'Do not forbid them to come to me.' There- 
fore, let them come when they are grown up; 
let them come when they understand, when 
they are instructed whither it is that they 
come; let them be made Christians when they 
can know Christ. What needs their guiltless 



150 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

age make such haste to the forgiveness of 
sins? Men will proceed more cautiously in 
worldly matters; and one who is not trusted 
with earthly substance is trusted with the 
heavenly. Let them know how to ask for 
salvation, that you may seem to have given 
to one that asked. For no less cause must 
the unwedded also be deferred," etc. 

The argument is that baptism would be 
more profitable if delayed till the child could 
be instructed in relation to the meaning of 
forgiveness, and of salvation through Christ, 
and particularly in regard to the enormity of 
sins committed after baptism; and until the 
fervor of passion had passed, so that the temp- 
tation to sin after baptism would be less pow- 
erful and more certainly resisted. On this 
same ground, he advised the delay of the 
baptism of all unmarried persons; so that 
the opposition of this man to infant baptism 
proves it to have been the common practice 
of the Church, and shows that in his day the 
idea of its being an innovation had not yet 
originated. The only question raised in re- 
gard to this testimony is as to whether Ter- 
tullian spoke of "infants" properly, or of 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. I 5 I 

little children, who, in our clay, would be 
considered capable of believing; but there is 
really no ground for this question. The word 
pawulos means infants, as well as little chil- 
dren in general; but the ambiguity of the 
word is overcome and its application settled 
by his other allusions to their condition ; for, 
observe: I. The little children are such as 
can not ask for salvation. 2. They had spon- 
sors or godfathers to act for them as infants. 
3. It was before their moral dispositions were 
developed, and before they could know Christ. 
There can be no doubt, therefore, that he 
spoke of infants. 

Our next witness is the celebrated Greek 
father, Origen, who was perhaps the most 
learned man in the Church in his day. He 
was a native of Egypt, born A. D. 185, his 
father suffering martyrdom when the son was 
seventeen years old. He received a good edu- 
cation, in philosophy and rhetoric in particu- 
lar, which gave him a thirst for knowledge, 
and inspired him with energy to pursue his 
studies by reading and traveling. His grand- 
father was a Christian, and it is probable that 
his ancestors were converted in the apostles' 



152 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

days. His mind was capacious and active, 
and he became learned in the languages and 
literature of his times, and traveled exten- 
sively, making careful investigation of what- 
ever could interest the Christian student. The 
eccentricities which detracted from the value 
of his expositions by no means interfered with 
his integrity of character or affected his relia- 
bility as a witness. Origen testifies unequiv- 
ocally to the fact of infant baptism in his 
day, and declares that the Church had an 
order or tradition from the apostles to give 
them this rite. His testimony is exceedingly 
valuable, and the only effort made to destroy 
its force is to reproach his opinions and fault 
the speculations in which he indulged with 
reference to the reasons for baptizing infants; 
but the fact that Origen attempted to explain 
the reasons for this rite, and gave opinions as 
to the necessity of it, proves that he found it 
in the Church, and believed it to have come 
down from the apostles. Indeed, the practice 
in his day was universal, so far as is known, 
and unchallenged ; and we have nothing to 
do with his conjectures as to the necessity 
and uses of it, but only with the fact, con- 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 153 

cerning which he was so intelligent and com- 
petent a witness. 

Origen says: " Besides all this, let it be 
considered what is the reason that, whereas 
the baptism of the Church is given for the 
forgiveness of sins, infants also are by the 
usage of the Church baptized, when, if there 
were nothing in infants that wanted forgive- 
ness and mercy, the grace of baptism would 
be needless to them." (Eighth Homily on 
Leviticus.) In speaking of infants as affected 
by original sin, he says: "Pro hoc ecclesia ab 
apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvidis bap- 
tistnum dari." "For this the Church received 
from the apostles an order even to give bap- 
tism to infants." (Com. on Epis. to Romans.) 
Again, he says: "Having occasion given in 
this place, I will mention a thing that causes 
frequent inquiries among the brethren. In- 
fants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. 
Of what sins? or when have they sinned? 
or how can any reason of the laver in their 
case hold good, but according to the sense 
that we mentioned even now: 'None is free 
from pollution, though his life be but the 
length of a day upon the earth?' And it is 



154 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

for that reason — because by the sacrament of 
baptism the pollution of our birth is taken 
away — that infants are baptized.'' The ' ' tra- 
ditionem" in the quotation above means any 
unwritten precept, injunction, order, or com- 
mand. The modern use of tradition scarcely 
gives the force of the word as it was un- 
derstood then. It was a tradition that was 
deemed binding, an "order" orally delivered. 
The Church in Origen's time received this 
order as carrying obligation with it, and en- 
tertained no doubt of its genuineness. Of 
course, it was not a verbal order that leaped 
over the heads of the intervening genera- 
tions of Christians, making it the duty of 
the Church to do now what had not been 
done before; but, as certainly as Origen 
traced the order or tradition back to the 
apostles, he traced it in connection with the 
practice of the Church through all the inter- 
vening years, a task for which his compe- 
tency will not be questioned. 

And now, before citing testimony that 
reaches back to an earlier period, I wish 
to remark several things that bear upon the 
general argument. It should be distinctly 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 1 55 

understood that, in quoting these post-apos- 
tolic fathers, we are not indorsing their opin- 
ions. We are not at all concerned about their 
speculations in theology. Many of them had 
fallen into serious error in doctrine, and in- 
dulged speculations which seem to us child- 
ish, although they treated them with great 
solemnity, as if they were of the highest 
importance. In this respect, their writings 
present a marked contrast to those of the 
apostles, and impress us that the antiquity 
of opinions not based on inspiration is no 
guarantee of their soundness. The truth is, 
that, at this early day, the doctrines of the 
apostles were greatly misapprehended, and 
serious errors had crept into the Church; 
and some of the men whose testimony we 
rely upon with great confidence in the ques- 
tion of fact, as to what the Church did and 
believed, contributed in no small degree to 
the spread and perpetuation of errors that 
have troubled the Church through all the 
time that has since elapsed. Among the 
first corruptions of doctrine that gained firm 
footing in the Church, and whose pernicious 
influence is felt to the present day, is one 



156 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

which had immediate connection with the 
subject before us — the baptism of infants. 
The design of baptism was misinterpreted, 
and its symbolical character nearly lost. In- 
stead of being understood, as originally, to 
be an emblematical washing away of sins, it 
was taken as a real washing away of sins; 
and, of course, from being the sign of regen- 
eration, it was taken for regeneration itself. 
In this way, the language of Christ and the 
apostles was misapplied, and baptismal re- 
generation well-nigh overspread the Church. 
Possibly, many in that day retained in their 
thoughts of baptism the inward grace and 
the outward sign, under the distinctive name 
of the ordinance, as was so largely the case 
with the English divines of the last century; 
but certain it is that in popular use and pop- 
ular thought baptism was the "hew birth," 
the "remission of sins," the "sanctification ;" 
and, following this corruption of the doctrine, 
abuses in connection with the administration 
of baptism were rapidly multiplied. The or- 
dinance assumed an importance never given 
it before, and a disposition manifested itself 
to gather around it an air of mystery, and to 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. I 57 

invest it with greater interest by making its 
administration more pompous, so as to com- 
pete with the imposing ceremonies of the 
pagan temples. The idea was advanced that 
the Spirit of God brooded over the water 
and breathed upon it a life-giving energy, so 
that real virtue proceeded therefrom; and no 
sooner was the water thus invested than men 
reasoned with themselves, that, if a little water 
was good, more was better, and then effusion 
gave place to immersion; and then they rea- 
soned that the body should be washed, and 
not the clothing, and then the clothing was 
removed, and the body immersed in puris 
nahiralibus. Then came also the use of salt 
and the chrism, the sign of the cross, the 
blowing in the ear, and baptismal robes and 
flowers, and all the abuses of the rite which 
Romanists yet practice, and for which they 
plead this high antiquity. 

The question then arises, Did not infant 
baptism spring up with these abuses? The 
opposers of the practice assert that it did ; 
but in support of this they give us no proof, 
and rely upon the prevalence of other errors 
to justify the assumption that this was also an 



158 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

error. It is a question of fact, fortunately, 
and the testimony of men whose opinions 
were often wild is good and reliable in this 
issue; and all the testimony proves that the 
practice did not originate along with these 
abuses, nor in any wise grow out of the errors 
of doctrine that prevailed. The arguments 
of all those early writers recognize the uni- 
versality of the practice, and show that, so 
far from regarding it as an innovation to be 
defended on the ground that infants needed 
washing from sin, they regarded it as suffi- 
ciently well established to become the ground 
of argument in favor of doctrines which were 
not so generally accepted. Many of them 
believed that infant baptism was intended to 
wash away native pollution; for they so as- 
serted in explanation of it as a divine ap- 
pointment ; and they appealed to the practice, 
and its divine authorization, in proof of the 
doctrine of inherited depravity. If the doc- 
trine of infant depravity had been universal 
in the Church, and undisputed, and if these 
writers had made appeal to this doctrine in 
justification of the practice, there might be 
some reasonableness in the conjecture that 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 159 

infant baptism grew out of this doctrine. But 
the facts are all the reverse of this. The 
doctrine of original sin, and hereditary de- 
pravity, should not be classed with the errors 
of those days. The speculations of these 
writers, concerning the removal of native 
pollution, do not invalidate the main thoughts 
which they derived from the inspired writings. 
The truth is that the apostolic doctrine of 
the fall and corruption of human nature in 
Adam was now disputed by many, and in 
maintaining their ground, if there had been 
any reason for it, those who denied depravity 
would have called in question the practice of 
baptizing infants, for it was plainly to their 
interest in the discussion to do so; but not 
one of them did it. They had the fact 
pressed upon their attention, as an argument 
against them ; and there is not the slightest 
doubt that they would have denied the au- 
thority for the practice, if they could have 
found any reason for the denial. They were 
not lacking in courage or shrewdness, and 
nothing could have restrained them from re- 
torting upon their antagonists that the prac- 
tice they alleged in justification of their 



l6o CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

doctrine was itself an innovation, if they could 
have persuaded themselves that it was lacking 
in the essential of divine authority. We do 
not, therefore, argue the universality of this 
practice from the mere absence of recorded 
opposition; but we have the stronger and 
more positive ground for our faith, in the 
fact that the subject was involved in such 
disputations as would have brought out op- 
position naturally and logically ; that one 
party appealed to it as an argument in favor 
of a doctrine which the other party denied ; 
and that all parties admitted the practice, and 
no one questioned the authority for it. With 
this condition of things, there can be no 
doubt that, at that early day, the whole 
Church believed it to have come down from 
the apostles. 

Then, the only question remaining has ref- 
erence to the opportunities which the writers 
of those times had for knowing whence the 
practice came, and the possibility of their 
being deceived. In other words, Could this 
practice have been brought into the Church 
as an innovation, after the death of the apos- 
tles, and obtain such universal acceptance, 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. l6l 

without disturbance or dispute, that the most 
learned men of the times — men of intelli- 
gence sufficient to cope with the keenest 
skepticism — could not trace its origin, and did 
not suspect its want of apostolical authority? 
It is useless, it seems to me, to claim that 
such men as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, 
Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Pelagius, Chry- 
sostom, Augustine, and the whole body of 
Christian Fathers, were lacking in intelligence 
or mental activity, so as to be liable to be 
imposed upon in a matter of this kind. That 
some of them erred in doctrine, as good and 
wise men do yet, is not to be disputed. We 
claim nothing on the authority of their opin- 
ions. It is one of the mistakes of Rome to 
attach unbecoming importance to what these 
men thought and said in the field of polemic 
and speculative divinity. The only claim we 
make in their behalf is, that they were intel- 
ligent and honest men, and reliable witnesses 
in any question of fact with which they were 
conversant. Their speculations did not de- 
stroy their integrity, and can not invalidate 
their testimony upon the question before us. 

We accept their testimony as to w r hat the 
ii 



1 62 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Church did and believed in their day, and 
leave their speculations to stand or fall upon 
their own merits. 

I now direct attention to the testimony of 
earlier witnesses, tracing infant baptism back 
to the very age of the apostles. Irenaeus, 
who was educated in Asia, and was afterward 
Bishop of Lyons, gives testimony of singular 
significance. He was born about the time 
that the apostle John died, and lived to be an 
old man, occupying his office A. D. 178, so 
that his writings date back to within seventy 
years of the death of the last of the apostles. 
His facilities were excellent in early life for 
learning the opinions and practices of the 
apostles; for he was in the habit of hearing 
Polycarp, the friend and companion of John, 
who was by that apostle appointed in charge 
of the Church in Smyrna. Irenaeus gives the 
following account of his early friend and 
teacher, Polycarp: "I remember the things 
that were done then better than I do those 
of later times, so that I could describe the 
place where he sat, and his going out and 
coming in; his manner of life, his features, 
his discourse to the people concerning the 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 1 63 

conversation he had had with John and others 
that had seen the Lord: how he rehearsed 
their discourses, and what he had heard them 
that were eye-witnesses of the Word of Life 
say of our Lord, and of his miracles and doc- 
trine: all agreeable to the Scriptures." 

I cite this to show the proximity of this 
witness to the apostles; and also to show the 
reverent feelings with which he cherished the 
memory of his friend, who had seen and con- 
versed with those who had seen Christ on 
earth. It indicates clearly that he had it in 
his power to know whether infant baptism 
had come in as an innovation or not. 

Irenaeus, speaking of Christ, says: "For 
he came to save all persons by himself; all, 
I say, who by him are regenerated to God; 
infants, and little ones, and youth, and elder 
persons." The pertinency and force of this 
language is in the use of the word " regen- 
erate." It is necessary to bear in mind that 
all these early writers spoke of "regenera- 
tion" in such a way as to include baptism. 
If they did not use regeneration as exactly 
synonymous with baptism, they made it in- 
clude the outward rite; and there is more 



164 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

probability that in their conceptions of the 
thing they excluded the inward grace than 
that they excluded the external ceremony. 
Baptism was so fixed in their minds as re- 
generation, that they spoke of regeneration 
as baptism. To what extent they still im- 
plied and understood the inward grace, as 
connected with the rite, we can not deter- 
mine; but it is certain that when this "Fa- 
ther" spoke of "infants," "little ones," 
"youths," and "elder persons," as being 
" regenerated to God," he meant that all 
these classes were baptized. His additional 
remark, that Christ sanctified all these stages 
of human life by himself passing through 
them, by no means interferes with the sense 
of the word "regenerate," then so fully es- 
tablished by usage. We see from his own 
words, in another place, that he used ' ' regen- 
erate" to include baptism. He says: "And 
again, when he g.we his disciples the com- 
mission of regenerating unto God, he said 
unto them, 'Go and teach all nations, bap- 
tizing them in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost/ where 
the commission of regenerating plainly means 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 165 

the commission of baptizing." (See Wall's 
" Hist. Infant Baptism. ") 

This proves beyond doubt that Irenaeus 
spoke of infant baptism; and I believe thato 
no historian has doubted the fact. Neander 
admits the fact, though he gathers from 
Irenaeus's words that he rather justified it by' 
principles drawn from a profound Christian 
consciousness than from the authority of the 
apostles; but a little reflection on his refer- 
ence to the commission will show that he 
understood that commission, to " regenerate 
to God by baptism," to apply to all the 
classes named. We are not concerned about 
his method of justifying it, by appeals to 
Christian consciousness or otherwise ; it is 
the fact that the practice prevailed in his day, 
and without opposition, that is most pertinent 
to our argument. This is the pregnant fact, 
that this Christian Father, who lived in the 
lingering light of the apostolic age, whose ear 
caught the echo of apostolic preaching, and 
who cherished so affectionately the memory 
of one who had been the contemporary and 
friend of the beloved disciple, and others who 
had seen the Lord — that this man, whose 



1 66 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

early training was by those who clasped 
hands with the apostles, believed in infant 
baptism, and believed it enjoined in the com- 
mission to ''disciple the nations, baptizing 
them." That such testimony would pass un- 
challenged could not be expected. It could 
not be otherwise than that it should be sub- 
jected to the most rigid scrutiny, and much 
labor has been bestowed upon it, with a view 
to weaken its force; but the result of the 
most learned criticism is to leave it just where 
I have placed it — not as justifying the doc- 
trine of "baptismal regeneration," but as 
vindicating the position that Irenaeus so used 
the phrase, "regenerated unto God," as to 
include baptism, and thereby recognize the 
baptism of "infants, little ones, youths, and 
elder persons." There is absolutely no other 
sense in which, at his day, one could speak 
of regenerating infants unto God. 

I submit the testimony of one more wit- 
ness. Justin Martyr was a learned Samaritan, 
converted about A. D. 133, and wrote about 
forty years after the apostle John died. He 
was doubtless born and educated while that 
apostle was yet on earth. He probably con- 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 167 

versed with many who had distinct recollec- 
tion of apostolic times; so that he too stood 
in the twilight of the day which was made 
glorious by the inspiration and zeal of men 
who had seen and heard the Lord. Justin 
says, * ' Many persons among us, of sixty and 
seventy years old, of both sexes, who were 
discipled to Christ in their childhood, do con- 
tinue uncorrupted." The allusion to baptism 
is in the phrase, " discipled to Christ." The 
word "discipled" is the same that occurs in 
the commission to " disciple the nations, 
baptizing them." It is matheteusate, and 
means to make disciples, though we have it 
rendered teach. The manner of making dis- 
ciples is by baptizing them. This is the 
meaning attached to the word by the apos- 
tles, and by all the post-apostolic Fathers. 
It is in the strictest harmony with this inter- 
pretation of the commission, and this use of 
matheteuOy that Justin speaks of persons being 
"discipled to Christ," meaning, by baptism. 
In the light of all the facts in the case, it is 
not possible to understand the words of Justin 
in any other sense. It is certain that persons 
could not be "discipled" without baptism; 



1 68 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

hence, when he says they were "discipled to 
Christ,' ' the testimony is just as positive as 
if he had said they were baptized in child- 
hood. And if this is correct, as it unques- 
tionably is, then Justin testifies that many 
were yet living, sixty and seventy years old, 
of both sexes, who were discipled by being 
baptized in childhood; and, as he wrote only 
about forty years after the death of John, 
these persons yet living must have been bap- 
tized in childhood, at least twenty years be- 
fore John, the last of the apostles, left the 
world. Here, then, unless this chain can be 
broken, is a record of infant baptism in the 
Church, that reaches back to apostolic times. 
And can this chain be broken? I verily be- 
lieve not. It has been hammered severely; 
but up to this time it has withstood the stal- 
wart blows of the giants of criticism, and 
remains complete, without a missing link! 

The word for child — paidion — is the same 
that is used in the Scriptures of little chil- 
dren, too young to act for themselves, and 
occurs sometimes interchangeably with bre- 
phos — infants. Its real meaning is as given, 
little children, too young to act for them- 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 169 

selves; and therefore it is properly used of 
infants. 

But the notions of Justin respecting bap- 
tism are seen in the fact that he makes it 
correspond with circumcision. He calls it 
the "spiritual circumcision." He says: "We 
also, who by him have had access to God, 
have not received the carnal circumcision, 
but the spiritual circumcision, which Enoch, 
and those like him, observed. And we have 
received it by baptism, by the mercy of God, 
because we were sinners; and it is enjoined 
upon all persons to receive it in the same 
way." Now, the pertinency of this is seen, 
when it is considered that Justin was con- 
ducting a dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, and 
was justifying the Christians in neglecting to 
circumcise their children. This neglect was 
a grievous fault, in the estimation of the 
Jew; and Justin shows that baptism is the 
"spiritual circumcision," and answers in the 
place of the "carnal circumcision;" but how 
this could meet the objection of the Jew, if 
the spiritual circumcision was disallowed to 
infants, it is impossible to see. In blending 
baptism and circumcision, as to their spiritual 



170 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

import, so as to show the identity of their 
meaning, Justin was but following the exam- 
ple of Paul, and probably had his words in 
mind. Upon the whole, the proof that Justin 
recognized infant baptism, both in his refer- 
ence to "spiritual circumcision/' and in the 
phrase, "discipled to Christ in childhood/' 
is too clear to admit of the slightest im- 
peachment. 

Here, then, we close the argument. By 
incontestable proof, we trace infant baptism to 
the times when men lived who had seen the 
apostles. We find no period in all the his- 
tory of the Church when it did not exist. 
The wisest and most learned men of those 
earliest days affirm that it came from the 
apostles. The apostolic record of household 
baptisms favors the supposition that it did. 
In a word, the chain of testimony, from 
Scripture and history, is too strong to be 
broken, since nothing better than conjecture 
can be brought against it. Let the different 
lines of argument now submitted, each meas- 
surably independent of the other, all be 
brought together, and let their separate rays 
be concentrated into a focus, and the light 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. \y\ 

of truth will speedily drive away the "shad- 
ows, clouds, and darkness,' ' under which so 
many grope, while honestly seeking the path 
of duty in relation to this divine appointment. 



172 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



Discourse VI. 

THE NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 
"Of the doctrine of baptisms." — Heb. VI, 2. 

IN considering the mode of baptism, the 
first thing necessary is to bring before 
our minds the exact issue to be discussed. 
There can be no really profitable investigation 
of the subject without this. 

It is known that, as a Church, we prac- 
tice three modes of administering the rite; 
namely, pouring, sprinkling, and immersion. 
Why, then, should we discuss the question 
of mode at all, seeing that we acknowledge 
the validity of baptism administered by either 
or all the modes? Upon this subject, as well 
as that of the subjects of baptism, we stand 
on the defensive. Our practice is called in 
question by those who are more exclusive 
than ourselves, and we find ourselves very bit- 
terly assailed for our liberality. Our baptisms 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 1 73 

by pouring and sprinkling are denounced as 
no baptisms, and our resort to immersion is 
ridiculed as a weakness and a concession. 
Of course, we do not accept the representa- 
tions of other parties in matters of this kind, 
and propose to show that our whole practice 
is defensible on the solid ground of Scripture, 
and that our acceptance of immersion as an 
allowable mode of baptism is consistent with 
all our teachings, and implies nothing of in- 
differentism or concession. We make no war 
on the validity of baptism by immersion; but 
against the assumption that immersion is defi- 
nitely prescribed in the Scriptures, and is the 
only baptism, we enter our solemn protest. 

It is evident that very much, in this con- 
troversy, depends on the word baptize ; and 
an investigation of the nature and meaning 
of that word is the duty of this hour. There 
is much that might be said in regard to the 
origin, use, and meaning of this word, in 
which all parties substantially agree; but all 
that may be rightfully eliminated from our 
present discussion, as we have time and occa- 
sion only to deal with such aspects as are nec- 
essary to a right conclusion. I must remark, 



174 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

however, that the issue is not as our oppo- 
nents usually put it. It is not unusual with 
them to insist that baptize must mean im- 
merse or pour or sprinkle, and to proceed on 
the supposition that, in advocating effusion, 
we are aiming to prove that it does mean 
specifically pour or sprinkle. This represen- 
tation of the case is extremely incorrect, and 
fails utterly to indicate our position; and, of 
course, it can not possibly present the real 
issue. We do not believe that the word in 
question means specifically pour or sprinkle, 
any more than we believe it means immerse. 
We hold that the Greek verb baptizo, and 
the nouns baptismos and baptisma, are used in 
too broad a sense, in the Scriptures, to be 
translated by any specific terms in our lan- 
guage that simply express mode. Our trans- 
lators, in giving us the standard version, did 
exactly right in transferring these words to 
our language, with suitable terminations to 
make them legitimate English words. They 
found in our language no equivalents for 
them, in their judgment, and therefore did 
the only right thing; and we most cordially 
approve their action. The only thing to be 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 1 75 

regretted is that they did not invariably 
transfer the words, as they always did when 
allusion was had to the ordinance of the 
Church. We do not believe baptizo ought 
to be translated pour or sprinkle or immerse 
in any instance, as it is not; and the few 
places where it is translated "wash" would 
be better presented to the English reader if 
no translation had been attempted. As a 
class, efTusionists are well contented with the 
authorized version, and have never sought a 
new translation on sectarian grounds. 

The real question is, not as to whether 
baptizo means immerse or pour or sprinkle, 
but whether it is a specific or a generic term. 
We must ascertain this point before we can 
determine whether it expresses the manner 
of using the water in administering the rite, 
or simply expresses the act of administration, 
without determining the mode. If I show 
that the word is generic — that it relates to 
the administration of the ordinance by the 
use of water, without prescribing the mode — 
I shall have gained my point. My position 
is that the mode is to be learned outside of 
the word that expresses the administration, 



176 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

and outside of the corresponding noun which 
is the name of the ordinance. We must look 
at the practices which gave rise to the use 
of this word, to the surroundings of the par- 
ties administering the rite, and to its relig- 
ious meaning and symbolic import, and from 
these sources gather light as to the manner 
of baptizing. 

With these general remarks, I come directly 
to the question, Is baptize a specific or a gen- 
eric term? What is its real character? Does 
it, or does it not, definitely express the mode 
of using the water? I take the ground that 
it is generic, and, of course, must prove it. 
Mr. Carson, who is perhaps the ablest critic 
who has written on this subject in the inter- 
est of immersionism, and is generally rec- 
ognized as a standard authority in all the 
Churches where exclusive immersion prevails, 
tells us that the word is "strictly univocal." 
I mention this author because of his high 
standing and acknowledged ability, and for 
the purpose of having before us an authorita- 
tive representation of the other side. Now, 
a word that is "strictly univocal" is a word 
of one meaning; and it ought to be so well 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 177 

defined that there could be no possible 
ground for controversy concerning it. Its 
first meaning is its last and only mean- 
ing, and all discussion about primary and 
secondary meanings is excluded. But, not- 
withstanding the learned criticisms of the 
distinguished writer named, and his vigorous 
grappling with the stubborn facts which he 
encountered, my best judgment compels me 
to hold that, if this word is " strictly uni- 
vocal," the lexicons, which give it several 
meanings, are wrong, the Bible use is wrong, 
and classic use is wrong; for, in all these, 
there are different meanings attached to it. 
A generic word is one which comprehends a 
genus or kind; and there are many generic 
words in common use, whose character, in 
this respect, we never stop to consider. I 
say, for instance, that I recently rode from 
New York to Philadelphia. I convey a very 
definite idea in reference to the fact of pass- 
ing from one city to another; and yet the 
word rode is generic. It tells the general 
fact, but tells nothing as to the mode of rid- 
ing. I might have ridden in the cars or on 

a boat or in a buggy or on horseback. In 

12 



178 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

either case, the word properly expresses the 
idea intended. The remark is made in your 
hearing, "A man was killed yesterday." A 
very serious fact is thus clearly stated; but 
the manner of the killing is not indicated. 
He might have been shot or stabbed or 
drowned or poisoned; and, in either case, 
he was killed. This, then, is a generic word, 
which expresses a thing donp, without ex- 
pressing the way of doing it. Wet is a gen- 
eric word, and so is wash, because the wetting 
and the washing can be done in different ways. 
The specific term that would express the mode 
of the action may be included or implied in 
the generic; but it is not and can not be an 
equivalent for it, because it does not exhaust 
its meaning. The generic baptize may imply 
the specific pour, sprinkle, or immerse; but 
neither of these words, nor all of them to- 
gether, can be taken as an equivalent for bap- 
tize, for the reason that they do not exhaust 
the meaning of baptize. There is still a relig- 
ious idea, a consecration to a holy service, 
that no specific term expressive of mode can 
convey; and, on this account, we would not 
have the word murdered by any partial trans- 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 1 79 

lation. According to the assumption of im- 
mersionists, the word immerse is the equiva- 
lent of baptize; but, if so, the naked fact of 
sinking under water exhausts its meaning, 
and whatever besides this abstract idea is 
necessary to the ordinance is not expressed, 
and can not be expressed, by the word baptize. 
But how shall we determine the character 
and meaning of the word before us? To 
what shall we appeal as authority in the case ? 
To the lexicons, of course, says one. Well, 
lexicons are useful; but are they ultimate 
authority? Let us think a little. I would 
not ignore the judgment of learned men, and 
therefore inquire what some of high repute 
have said touching the value of lexicons in 
this discussion. The late Alexander Camp- 
bell, whose learning has never been ques- 
tioned, says, "No learned man will ever rest 
his faith upon dictionaries." Again, he says: 
"I say the dictionaries are sometimes wrong, 
and that I can prove. So say all philologists 
and critics of eminence. The lexicons fre- 
quently contradict each other on various 
points." (Debate with Rice, pp. 96, 106.) 
Mr. Carson takes similar ground. In his 



180 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

chapter on the burden of proof, in speaking 
of a definition which Dr. Johnson gives of 
the word " paradox," Mr. Carson says, "It 
is given merely on the authority of etymol- 
ogy, which is no authority at all. Mere con- 
trariety to the prevailing opinion is not a 
paradox, in the sense of the English lan- 
guage." Here, then, is proof of the need of 
caution in using lexicons as authority. If 
Dr. Johnson was betrayed into an inaccuracy 
by simply following the light of etymology, 
what may we not fear in following lexicog- 
raphers of dead or foreign languages? The 
truth is, the lexicons are but the echo of 
usage as understood and interpreted by the 
lexicographer. Our appeal ought, therefore, 
to be not to the lexicons, but to usage. 
Nothing but examples from actual usage can 
be ultimate authority in determining the 
meaning of words in any language. And I 
am happy in being sustained in this position 
by the distinguished immersionist critic, Mr. 
Carson. He says: " Language has no logical 
truth for its standard; and therefore against 
this it can not trespass. Use is the sole 
arbiter of language; and whatever is agree- 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. l8l 

able to this authority stands justified beyond 
impeachment. " Then, passing the lexicons, 
not as useless, but as of only secondary im- 
portance, I appeal to usage — to the Bible use 
of this word. 

The word baptizo is derived from bapto ; 
and it is not claimed by any one that there 
is any difference between the two words, so 
far as mode is concerned. We shall, there- 
fore, be in the direct line of the argument 
while considering passages containing either 
word. In citing passages from the Old Tes- 
tament, the Septuagint is referred to, which 
is just as valuable as the New Testament, so 
far as illustrating the use of words is con- 
cerned. I begin by giving a few quotations 
where bapto occurs with such surroundings 
that it can not possibly mean immerse. I 
refer to Leviticus xiv, 2-7: "This shall be 
the law of the leper in the day of his cleans- 
ing: He shall be brought unto the priest, and 
the priest shall go forth out of the camp ; and 
the priest shall look, and, behold, if the 
plague of leprosy be healed in the leper, then 
shall the priest command to take for him that 
is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, 



1 82 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop ; and 
the priest shall command that one of the 
birds be killed in an earthen vessel over run- 
ning water. As for the living bird, he shall 
take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, 
and the hyssop, and shall dip ' them and the 
living bird in the blood of the bird that was 
killed over the running water: and he shall 
sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from 
the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce 
him clean, and shall let the living bird loose 
into the open field." In this passage, bapto 
is rendered dip ; but it can not be understood 
in the sense of immerse. Nor would it do 
to translate it immerse; for the living bird, 
the cedar wood, the scarlet, and the hyssop, 
could not all be immersed in the blood of 
the bird that was killed. There was a phys- 
ical impossibility in the way. But the im- 
mersionist replies that the blood of the slain 
bird was caught in a vessel containing run- 
ning or living water, in which mixture the 
living bird and the other things were im- 
mersed. The answer is, the "mixture" is 
all in the ideas of the critic ; for there is no 
mixture described in the passage. The bird 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAFl'IZE. 183 

was to be killed in a vessel over running water; 
but that the water was in the vessel, so as to 
mix with the blood, is the purest conjecture. 
The dipping was for the purpose of smearing, 
preparatory to sprinkling upon the person to 
be cleansed. This meaning of the word is 
justified here, and in many other places, 
both in sacred and classical writings, as we 
shall see. 

The story of the strange punishment of 
Nebuchadnezzar is familiar to Bible readers. 
I read Daniel iv, 33: "The same hour was 
the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and 
he was driven from men, and did eat grass as 
oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of 
heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' 
feathers, and his nails like birds' claws." The 
word translated "wet" is bapto, and bears 
the general sense of moisten, but does not 
and can not admit of the idea of an immer- 
sion. The wetting was not effected by dip- 
ping or plunging. The dew of heaven fell 
gently, and wet his body. This is all. No 
learning or ingenuity can extort from bapto 
the meaning of immerse, in this instance. 
Critics in that interest have bestowed a vast 



1 84 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

amount of labor on this passage, trying to 
remove it out of their way; but there it 
stands, an everlasting contradiction to the 
assertion that bapto is a» specific word, mean- 
ing only immerse. 

In Revelation xix, 13, we find bapto in a 
highly figurative description of the Son of 
God, as a conquering warrior, triumphing 
over his enemies, clothed in a "vesture 
dipped (bebammefion) in blood." The imagery 
is evidently taken from the prophet Isaiah's 
description of the same personage, in the 
same character. I read the prophet's de- 
scription, Isaiah lxiii, 1-4: "Who is this that 
cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from 
Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, 
traveling in the greatness of his strength? I 
that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. 
Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and 
thy garments like him that treadeth in the 
winefat? I have trodden the winepress alone; 
and of the people there was none with me: 
for I will tread them in mine anger, and tram- 
ple them in my fury; and their blood shall be\ 
sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain 
all my raiment. For the day of vengeance 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 1 85 

is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed 
is come." The idea in both passages is the 
same. It is that of a warrior staining his rai- 
ment in the blood of his enemies. The vest- 
ure " dipped" in Revelation is the garment 
stained in Isaiah; and, while bapto expresses 
the idea of stain, without regard to mode, 
the condition of the scene, as w r ell as the pos- 
itive language of the prophet, indicates that 
the vesture is to be understood as stained, or 
dyed, by the sprinkling of the blood. Im- 
mersion is out of the question. So, in the 
expression, ' * Give a sop when I have dipped 
it," the idea is not that of an immersion, but 
smearing. (See John xiii, 26.) So, also, in 
Matthew xxvi, 23: "He that dippeth his 
hand with me in the dish" does not mean 
immerse his hand; for it was not customary 
to immerse the hand in the dish from which 
food was being taken at the table. In all 
these places bapto bears the general meaning 
of wet, dye, stain, moisten, smear, and that 
without expressing the mode. 

Now, before tracing the Bible use of this 
word further, I wish to look outside of the 
Scriptures for a little time. Much is said in 



1 86 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

this general controversy about the primary 
and the secondary meaning of the word — 
about its literal, metaphorical, and conse- 
quential meanings; but it is not possible, in 
these discourses, to enter critically into this 
department of investigation, nor is it neces- 
sary. I am not so much concerned about 
the primary meaning as the proper meaning 
at the time the Savior spoke and the New 
Testament was written. It is well known 
that the first meaning of words does not 
always remain their proper meaning. Much 
of the labor of the philologist consists in 
tracing the history of words and marking 
the modifications of their meaning. It is by 
no means uncommon for the secondary mean- 
ing to take the place of the primary as the 
proper and literal meaning; but upon this 
point I wish to read the language of the 
learned immersionist critic whom I have 
already named, Mr. Carson. He is speaking 
of this same word bapto, and says: "Now, 
while I contend that dyeing is the secondary 
meaning of this word, I contend also that 
this is a real literal meaning, independent of 
consequence. Although this meaning arose 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 1 87 

from the dyeing by dipping, yet the word 
has come, by appropriation, to denote dyeing 
without reference to mode. . . . That 
bapto signifies to dye, in any manner, is 
a truth which, instead of being against us, 
serves to solve difficulties that have been 
very clumsily got over by some of the ablest 
writers on this side of the question. 
Nothing in the history of words is more com- 
mon than to enlarge or diminish their mean- 
ing. Ideas not originally included in them 
are often affixed to some words, while others 
drop ideas originally asserted in their appli- 
cation. In this way, bapto, from signifying 
mere mode, came to be applied to a certain 
operation usually performed in that mode. 
From signifying dip, it came to signify to 
dye by dipping, because this was the way in 
which things were usually dyed; and after- 
ward, from dyeing by dipping, it came to 
denote dyeing in any manner. A like process 
might be shown in the history of a thousand 
words." Mr. Carson thus frankly gives his 
opinion of this word bapto, and proceeds to 
support it by adducing examples from the 
classics, which, without his designing it, prove 



1 88 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

beyond successful contradiction, that bapto is, 
as we contend, a generic term. Among other 
examples, he gives the following: "The only 
instance in which I have observed the word 
bapto in this signification is in the works of 
Hippocrates. He employs it to denote dyeing 
by dropping the dyeing liquid on the thing 
dyed : * When it drops upon the garments they 
are dyed.' This, surely, is not dyeing by 
dipping." Then, after presenting several ex- 
amples from other writers, proving the same 
point, Mr. Carson comments on them thus: 
"These examples are sufficient to prove that 
the word bapto signifies to dye in general y 
though originally, and still usually, applied to 
dyeing by dipping. Having such evidence 
before my eyes, I could not deny this to my 
opponents, even were it a difficulty as to the 
subject of the mode of baptism." (See Carson 
on "Mode of Baptism," Chap, ii, Sec. 6.) 

Now r , before reading further from this 
learned defender of immersion, whose name 
is justly celebrated in all anti-Pedobaptist 
Churches, I wish to note six propositions, 
which are fairly deducible from his state- 
ments. They are the following: i. That 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 1 89 

dyeing is a real meaning of bapto, inde- 
pendent of consequence. 2. " Bapto has 
come, by appropriation, to denote dyeing, 
without reference to mode." 3. "From dye- 
ing by dipping, it came to denote dyeing in 
any manner." 4. The examples adduced are 
"sufficient to prove that the word bapto sig- 
nifies to dye in general." 5. "Nothing, in 
the history of words, is more common than 
to enlarge or diminish their meaning." 6. A 
word "may come to enlarge its meanings so 
as to lose sight of its origin." In the light 
of these propositions, made not from desire, 
but from the force of evidence which an 
honest critic found himself unable to resist, I 
submit that bapto is not a specific word, re- 
lating only to mode, but a generic term. 
The question is not as to its origin or first 
meaning, but as to its real character and 
proper meaning, as determined by its use in 
the classics and in the Scriptures. 

In view of the importance of this matter, 
and in order to finish it up, so far as these 
discourses are concerned, I read again from 
Mr. Carson. After charging some of his 
Baptist brethren with straining matters, and 



I9O CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

employing false criticism, in their endeavors 
to prove that when bapto relates to dyeing it 
is always to dyeing by dipping, he says : 
"The observations of Dr. Gale on this sub- 
ject fall in some degree under the above 
censure. 'The Grecians,' says he, 'very fre- 
quently apply the word in all its various 
forms to the dyer's art, sometimes perhaps 
not very properly, but always so as to imply 
and refer only to its true natural signification, 
to dip.' What does this learned writer mean 
when he expresses a doubt of the propriety 
of this usage? Does he mean that such an 
extension of the meaning of words is in some 
degree a trespass against the laws of lan- 
guage? But such a usage is in strict accord- 
ance with the laws of language; and the 
history of a thousand words sanctions this 
example. Language has no logical truth for 
its standard, and therefore against this it can 
not trespass. Use is the sole arbiter of lan- 
guage ; and whatever is agreeable to this 
authority stands justified beyond impeach- 
ment. Candlestick is as properly applied to 
gold as to timber; bapto signifies to dye by 
sprinkling, as properly as by dipping, though 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 191 

originally it was confined to the latter. Nor 
is he well founded when he asserts that the 
word, in such applications, always implies 
and refers to its primary signification only. 
On the contrary, I have produced some ex- 
amples, and he himself has produced others, 
in which candor can not say that there is any 
such implication or reference. From such 
examples, it could not be known even that 
bapto has the meaning of dip. They relate 
to dyeing, wholly without reference to dipping; 
nay, some of them with an expressed refer- 
ence to another mode. This is a fact, and, 
were it even against me, I could not but 
admit it. Nor are such applications of the 
word to be accounted for by metaphor, as Dr. 
Gale asserts. They are as literal as a primary 
meaning. It is by extension of literal mean- 
ing, and not by figure of any kind, that 
words come to depart so far from their orig- 
inal signification. The examples of this kind 
which Dr. Gale produces can not be ac- 
counted for by his philosophy. 'Magnes, an 
old comic poet of Athens, used the Lydian 
music, shaved his face, and smea7'ed it over 
with tawny ashes.' Now, surely, bapto?nenos 



I92 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

here has no reference to its primary meaning. 
Nor is it used figuratively. The face of the 
person was rubbed with the ashes. By any 
thing implied or referred to in this example, 
it could not be known that bapto ever signi- 
fies to dip." 

So much for the candor of Mr. Carson. 
His intelligence and learning recoiled at the 
" clumsy" method of his brethren, in getting 
over the difficulties they encountered in the 
classical use of this word; and, seeing their 
"straining" and "false criticism," and their 
manifest failures, he made a most vigorous 
effort to redeem the cause. He succeeded in 
gaining an enviable reputation as a learned 
critic; but his less "clumsy" and more re- 
fined methods would not remove the difficul- 
ties. He proved that bapto is a generic term, 
although he did not admit the fact in so many 
words. I take what he established, and allow 
his speculations, and his strugglings with in- 
superable difficulties, to pass; accepting this 
high authority as superseding the necessity 
of a search jnto the classical use of the word 
that would be unsuited to the public congre- 
gation. 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 1 93 

As baptizo is a derivative of bapto] it can 
not be more specific. I now give a few ex- 
amples of its use. The first one is from the 
Apocrypha, and is intended simply as an 
illustration. I read from Ecclesiasticus xxxiv, 
25: "He that washeth himself from a dead 
body, and toucheth it again, what availeth 
his washing?" Here are two words rendered 
"wash" in the same verse. The first one is 
baptizo, the last is louo. The last is unques- 
tionably generic; and the first can not be 
more specific, but bears the same general 
sense. But this is not the argument. The 
question is, What is meant by the sentence, 
"He that w T asheth [baptizet/i] himself from a 
dead body?" It is an allusion to the require- 
ment of the law of Moses in regard to the 
purification of persons who might contract 
uncleanness by touching the body of a dead 
person. The law pronounced such unclean 
until they were purified by having the water 
of separation sprinkled upon them. This 
identical purification is expressed by the use 
of the word baptizo. The law is in Numbers 
xix, 17-19: "And for an unclean person 
they shall take of the ashes of the burnt 

T 3 



194 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

heifer of purification for sin, and running 
water shall be put thereto in a vessel: and 
a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it 
in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, 
and upon all the vessels, and upon the per- 
sons that were there, and upon him that 
touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, 
or a grave: and the clean person shall 
sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, 
and on the seventh day: and on the seventh 
day he shall purify himself, and Avash his 
clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall 
be clean at even." Now, it is evident that 
in this ceremony the real purification was in 
the sprinkling of the water by the clean per- 
son upon the unclean. Hence the reason, 
assigned in the thirteenth verse, why the 
unclean person that refused to be purified 
should be cut off from Israel: "Whosoever 
toucheth the dead body of any man that is 
dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the 
tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall 
be cut off from Israel: because the water of 
separation was not sprinkled npon him, he shall 
be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him." 
Nothing could take the place of the sprink- 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 1 95 

ling of the water by the clean upon the 
unclean. This was the great fact in the 
divinely appointed service; and yet this cer- 
emonial washing, as a whole, is expressed in 
the place before us by baptizo. "He that 
baptizetli himself from a dead body." The 
real baptizing was the sprinkling. The sub- 
sequent washing of his clothes and bathing 
of his flesh was required; and yet it was not 
the purification, nor is there any probability 
that even this required an immersion. Con- 
sidering the situation of the Israelites in the 
wilderness, where the crowd was so great and 
facilities for immersion were so scarce, it is 
almost a certainty that both the washing and 
the bathing were without immersion, espe- 
cially since no word in the whole account 
demands that sense; but, to say the very 
least of the case, here is a baptism in which 
sprinkling was the chief part. 

Perhaps the earliest event, in the history 
of God's ancient people, that is mentioned as 
a baptism at a later day, is the crossing oT the 
Red Sea by the Israelites. Something took 
place, in connection with that event, which 
Paul calls a baptism. I refer to 1 Corinthi- 



I96 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

ans x, I, 2: "Moreover, brethren, I would 
not that ye should be ignorant, how that 
all our fathers were under the cloud, and all 
passed through the sea; and were all bap- 
tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
sea." The plain facts here are all I want. 
These are: 1. There was a baptism — they 
"were all baptized." 2. The baptism took 
place while the Israelites were crossing the 
sea. 3. The cloud was employed as an in- 
strument of the baptism. Now, the question 
is, How were they baptized? Our opponents 
have a theory — they must have. It is that 
the water of the sea stood in walls on either 
side, and that the cloud came down and cov- 
ered them over, forming a tunnel, so that 
they were immersed. This makes a sorry 
baptism unto Moses, if nothing more was 
meant. But this tunnel arrangement is not 
satisfactory. They were baptized in the sea; 
and yet they passed over "dry-shod" and 
"on dry ground," according to the record; 
and but few have any faith in immersions on 
dry ground! The cloud was the instrument 
of the baptism; and we learn elsewhere what 
the cloud did. This passage through the Red 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 197 

Sea is celebrated in sacred song, in the sev- 
enty-seventh Psalm, where we read the fol- 
lowing: "The waters saw thee, O God, the 
waters saw thee ; they were afraid ; the depths 
also were troubled. The clouds poured out 
water; the skies sent out a sound; thine ar- 
rows also went abroad. The voice of thy 
thunder was in the heaven; the lightnings 
lightened the world; the earth trembled and 
shook. Thy way is in the sea, and thy path 
in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not 
known. Thou leddest thy people like a 
flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron." 
But for this, we might not have known that 
there was any other storm that night than 
the strong east wind, but nothing now seems 
more natural; and, but for what the apostle 
says, we should not have known that there 
was any baptism. The fact, however, is none 
the less certain because it was not mentioned 
before ; nor can there be any doubt that the 
cloud furnished the water, and baptized the 
people by pouring it upon them. 

The prophet Elijah caused something to 
be done, which the learned Greek Father in 
the Church, whose vernacular was the Greek 



I98 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

of the New Testament, the celebrated Origen, 
spoke of as a baptism, using this same bap- 
tizo. You remember Elijah's contest, on 
Mount Carmel, with the prophets of Baal, 
when he proposed that they should build an 
altar, and place wood upon it, and cut a 
bullock in pieces and lay upon the wood, and 
call upon their god, and that he would do 
the same, and the God that answered by fire 
should be acknowledged the true God. The 
challenge was accepted ; the altars were pre- 
pared, and the bullocks slain. The prophets 
of Baal called upon Baal, but got no answer. 
Elijah stood by, and, with some irony, told 
them to call aloud; that he was asleep, or 
gone away, and they should awake him, or 
in some way gain his attention; but they 
were compelled to give it up. Then he 
called them to him, and he made ready his 
altar, and the wood, and the bullock; but, 
before he prayed for the fire, he directed his 
servants to pour four barrels of water on the 
wood. This was repeated three times. Bar- 
rels were not known then as we know them 
now. The barrels were pails or jars, such as 
the ancients used in carrying water. Twelve 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 1 99 

vessels of water were poured upon the wood, 
in three successive pourings. Then, when 
Elijah prayed, the fire fell from heaven, and 
consumed the offering. Now, Origen de- 
scribes this, and calls the use of the water, 
which was poured upon the wood, baptizing 
the wood. Hear him: "How came you to 
think that Elias, when he should come, would 
baptize, who did not, in Ahab's time, baptize 
the wood upon the altar, which was to be 
washed before it was burnt, by the Lord's 
appearing in fire? But he ordered the priests 
to do that; not once only, but he says, Do it 
the second time; and they did it the second 
time : and, Do it the third time ; and they did 
it the third time. He, therefore, that did 
not himself baptize then, but assigned that 
work to others, how w r as he likely to baptize, 
when he, according to Malachi's prophecy, 
should come?" (Wall's "History of Infant 
Baptism.") The Greek word that would 
have expressed the mode of using the water 
would not express all the writer wished to 
express. He regarded the washing as a re- 
ligious act, a consecration; and therefore he 
used the generic term, baptizo, for the purpose, 



200 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

and that in full view of the fact that the 
washing was by pouring. This example of 
the use of the zvord by this learned Christian 
father, whose native tongue was the Greek, 
ought forever to silence all cavilers, and put 
to rest all doubts as to the generic character 
of this word. The wood upon the altar was 
baptized when the water was poured upon it. 
I now come to the daily baptisms which 
the Jews performed, and which familiarized 
them with the word, so that when the ordi- 
nance was instituted no explanations were 
needed. I read from Mark vii, 2-5: "And 
when they saw some of his disciples eat 
bread with defiled, that is to say, with un- 
washen hands, they found fault. For the 
Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash 
their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition 
of the elders. And when they come from 
the market, except they wash, they eat not. 
And many other things there be, which they 
have received to hold, as the washing of 
cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, 
Why walk not thy disciples according to the 
tradition of the elders, but eat bread with 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 201 

unwashen hands ?" Here we have the verb 
and the noun rendered "wash" and "wash- 
ing," where baptize and baptism would have 
been literal. The unwashen hands were un- 
baptized hands. The word rendered "tables" 
means couches or beds; and most likely the 
reference is to the large couches on which the 
Jews reclined during meals. The question is, 
How were these baptisms performed? I sub- 
mit the following points: I. The couches, ta- 
bles, or beds could not be immersed without 
great inconvenience, and much more labor than 
is intimated. 2. The frequency of these bap- 
tisms affords strong presumptive proof that 
they were not by immersion. They occurred 
on returning from market, and before eating. 
The conveniences for immersion, and the nec- 
essary changes of raiment, would not always 
be at hand. 3. The water-pots used by the 
Jews, such as are mentioned in John ii, 6, 
which were "after the manner of the purify- 
ing of the Jews, containing two or three fir- 
kins apiece," in all probability furnished the 
water, which, by means of these vessels, was 
kept in readiness, and were not of the capac- 
ity to admit of immersions of men, tables, or 



202 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

couches. 4. These were religious baptisms, 
and therefore immersion was not necessary to 
meet their design, which was a ceremonial 
cleansing. The Jews thought themselves lia- 
ble to come in contact, while in the markets, 
with Gentiles or other unclean persons, and 
thereby contract uncleanness in the religious 
sense. To guard themselves against continu- 
ing in any uncleanness thus contracted, they 
adopted the practice of baptizing themselves 
whenever they returned from market or places 
of exposure, and before eating. These cere- 
monial washings, called baptisms, were not 
required to be immersions, neither by any 
known law or tradition, nor by the end to be 
obtained. They were not, strictly speaking, 
the purifications enjoined by the law of Moses, 
such as the washing from a dead body and 
the like; but they were undoubtedly of sim- 
ilar character; and, though performed with 
pure water, or water not mixed with the ashes 
of the burnt-offering, there is no shadow of 
ground for supposing the water was not ap- 
plied in the same way — that is, by sprinkling. 
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
uses the phrase diaphorois baptismois ( w divers 



NATURE OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 203 

baptisms") in such a way as certainly to in- 
clude sprinkling in baptismos, if not to mean 
sprinkling and that alone. I refer to He- 
brews ix, 10: "Which stood only in meats 
and drinks, and divers washings [diaphorois 
baptismois], and carnal ordinances, imposed 
on them until the time of reformation." 
The "washings," or baptisms, were divers — 
that is, many and of different kinds. They 
were to be observed on different occasions, 
as rendered necessary by different causes. 
The allusion is to all the washings enjoined 
in the law of Moses. These, after the return 
of the Jews from Babylon, came to be called 
baptisms; hence the name of the washings 
of the hands, cups, pots, and tables, just 
noticed. How were the numerous washings 
and purifications under the law to be per- 
formed? Not one of all these was required 
to be done by immersion, while some of 
them are known to have been by sprinkling. 
In every instance where the manner of using 
the water is prescribed, it is by sprinkling; 
and in all the others, where the mode is 
not prescribed, the action is expressed by a 
generic word properly rendered "wash," but 



204 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

never" immerse. This, I claim, settles the 
question to the extent that baptizo, as well 
as bapto, is a generic term. This is all I 
now seek to establish; for, this gained, and 
the whole argument is ours. Those who im- 
agine that it must mean immerse, or else 
pour or sprinkle, mistake the whole issue; 
and we do not wonder they never rise to a 
clear survey of the broad ground on which 
we stand, and on which we admit the validity 
of baptisms by either mode. 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 205 



Discourse VII. 

NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 

"Then they that gladly received his word were bap- 
tized." — Acts ii, 41. 

HAVING seen, in the preceding dis- 
course, the nature of the word in this 
discussion, I now propose a rapid survey of 
the baptisms recorded in the New Testament, 
so far as they shed any light on the question 
of mode. 

The first is the Baptism of John. The 
record is brief, and begins so abruptly as to 
imply that the people were familiar with the 
rite before the Baptist began his ministry. 
John was loyal to the Levitical law, and enter- 
tained no thought of setting up an establish- 
ment of his own, in opposition to the institu- 
tions received by the people as of divine 
authority. All he did, therefore, was proper 
to be done under the law of Moses. The 



206 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 

legal washings of the Jews had long been 
known as baptisms. But he went to the Jews 
as a prophet of God, anointed to a particular 
work, as a reformer of his nation. Impelled 
by the Spirit within him, he went forth to 
call the people to repentance, and thus to 
prepare the way for the expected Messiah's 
advent. His was a "baptism of repentance 
for the remission of sins. " It was not Chris- 
tian baptism; for that was not yet instituted. 
Jesus of Nazareth had not yet performed any 
official act. Those who received John's bap- 
tism, and afterward became disciples of Christ, 
were baptized again. But the nature of this 
special work is not before us, and we must 
pass it. 

The argument in favor of immersion, from 
the account we have of John's baptism, is all 
drawn from the locality of his ministration, 
with one or two incidental expressions. He 
baptized in the river Jordan; and he bap- 
tized in Enon, near to Salem, because there 
was much water there; and some that were 
baptized in the river "went down into the 
water, and came up out of the water. " 
These brief sentences comprise the whole 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 20y 

argument for immersion, so far as this record 
is concerned. Can we reasonably account for 
all these expressions, independently of the 
manner of administering the rite? If we can, 
immersion is not necessary to an understand- 
ing of all that is written. 

Why did John go to the river to baptize? 
It is not certain that he began there. Mark 
says, "John did baptize in the wilderness." 
He also baptized "beyond Jordan." This, 
however, was at Bethabara, ahd might have 
been in Jordan; and so there is a possibility 
that the baptisms "in the wilderness" might 
have been in the river; but this is not cer- 
tain, nor is it important. The truth is that, 
shortly after John opened his ministry, a 
great excitement was created, and the news 
went abroad that a great prophet had risen in 
Israel. The people then came out to see and 
hear, and such multitudes thronged about him 
that he would have been compelled to resort 
to the river-side for the accommodation of the 
people, whatever the mode of his baptism, 
or if he had not baptized at all. A consider- 
ation of the population of Palestine at that 
time, and a fair construction of the record in 



208 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

regard to the numbers that were baptized, 
will lead to the conclusion that not less than 
three millions of persons received the rite at 
his hands. His ministry lasted somewhere 
from seven to eight months. Deduct from 
this time the Sabbaths, and the time em- 
ployed in preaching, and necessary for rest, 
refreshments, and incidental conversations, 
and you will readily see that it was literally 
impossible for him to immerse the numbers 
baptized in the time occupied. Besides the 
physical labor involved, immersion would have 
imposed many burdens and inconveniences, 
in the way of changes of clothing, and mak- 
ing the changes; so that we can not accept 
that as the mode of the baptisms, without 
the most positive proof. 

Then, let it be borne in mind, that John 
began his ministry in the neighborhood of 
the Jordan; that the vast multitudes that 
gathered around him rendered resort to the 
river a necessity, however he baptized ; and 
that the Jews, in all their religious washings 
under the law, attached great importance to 
living or "running water/' even when the 
washing was enjoined by the law to be done 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 20g 

by sprinkling, as in case of cleansing after 
the leprosy, and the washing from a dead 
body, and many other cases, and we have a 
good and sufficient reason for his going to 
the river, without regard to his manner of 
baptizing. And the fact that he was baptiz- 
ing Jews as a Jew, with the law binding upon 
him and the people, which enjoined religious 
washings by sprinklings, which washings the 
Jews now called baptisms, as we have seen, 
places the matter before us almost in the 
light of a demonstration that his baptism was 
by sprinkling. 

But would it not take nearly as much time 
to baptize by sprinkling as by immersion? 
Not necessarily so. In the latter case, each 
one would be separately handled by the Bap- 
tist; but, in the other case, the recipients of 
the rite might go to the water in companies, 
while John, from his position in the ''running 
water," with the hyssop branch in his hand, 
according to the Custom of the Jews, ordained 
by the law for religious washings, could 
sprinkle the water upon them with great 
rapidity, and yet with due solemnity. Now, 
if this were really the mode — as the very 



210 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

best authority indicates that it was — all that 
is said in the Scriptures of those baptized by 
John would be literally true, and in the best 
possible sense. It w r ould be true that they 
were baptized in Jordan; it would be true if, 
in being sprinkled, they stepped into the edge 
of the water, that they "went down into the 
water, and came up out of the water;" and, 
more than this, it would be true that they 
were baptized with water, which can be true 
only when the administrator handles the 
water, and not the person. 

And what has now been said answers the 
argument from the statement that "John was 
baptizing in Enon, near to Salem, because 
there was much water there." I make no 
argument on the phrase, polla hudata — many 
waters. Enon was not a river. Nor is there 
any proof in existence that there was any 
water-stream there large enough for immer- 
sion. That difficulty, however, could have 
been remedied by digging and damming, as 
it was a place of springs. We have seen 
why John must pitch his tent and do his 
work where there was a good supply of 
water, whether he baptized in one way or 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 211 

another. At the time the multitude was 
greatest, he did his work at the river, which 
was a turbulent, muddy, rapid stream, while 
the valley was excessively hot and unhealthy. 
Therefore, as soon as the throng subsided, he 
removed from the river, where there was 
more water, to Enon, the place of springs, 
where there was still "much water, " or 
"many waters," and of a better quality. 
He sought a place supplied with water, on 
the same principle that our camp-meeting 
people make this a requisite in selecting a 
place for encampment. By the force of cir- 
cumstances John was holding camp-meetings, 
not on a small scale either, and he must be 
located where water was plenty. 

And John baptized Jesus. So far as mode 
is concerned, there is no doubt that he was 
baptized just as others. He went down into 
the water. But that was not his baptism. 
After he went in, he was baptized. Then he 
came up out of the water. All this sheds no 
light on the mode. There is no dispute 
about the fact that he was baptized in the 
river. Many pious people lay much stress 
on his example. But he was not baptized as 



212 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

an example for any body. He did not go to 
the baptism till late in John's ministry, after 
the multitude had been baptized. A strange 
way to set an example! Nor was he a fit 
subject for John's baptism, in its ordinary 
meaning. John's was a "baptism unto re- 
pentance;" but here was a just person, who 
needed no repentance. John's was a baptism 
4 'for the remission of sins;" but this man 
had no sins to be remitted. Neither could 
he receive Christian baptism. That was a 
sign of regeneration, and an emblematic 
washing away of sins; all out of place in this 
case. Nor could he be baptized in his own 
name. What, then, could his baptism mean? 
It was exceptional in every respect. John, 
by inspiration or intuition, saw this, and for- 
bade him. Jesus insisted, and explained. 
What means his explanation, -'Thus it be- 
cometh us to fulfill all righteousness?" He 
needed no outward rite to fulfill personal 
righteousness. He was upright and pure. 
What then? He was a Jew, and John was 
a Jew, and in some sense this whole minis- 
try of baptism was a Jewish rite. He and 
John were both under the Levitical law, 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 213 

which he came to fulfill, not to destroy. The 
righteousness must, therefore, have been of 
the law. But what was there in the law that 
demanded this rite? Nothing that we can 
trace to a formal precept immediately appli- 
cable to the case. The same may be said of 
the whole of John's baptisms. Yet there was 
something in the law out of which John's bap- 
tism grew; and there was a principle in that 
law, interpenetrating all its precepts, and per- 
vading all its ceremonies, that could be ful- 
filled in this extraordinary instance. It was that 
which disallowed any public religious service 
to be performed by any one on whom the wa- 
ter of separation or dedication had not been 
" sprinkled." It was in compliance with the 
spirit of the Levitical law that he deferred his 
ministry till he was thirty years of age ; and 
in the same spirit, before beginning his public 
ministry, he sought this religious consecration 
by the use of "running water." How, then, 
was he baptized? Divest your minds of all 
the songs about "yielding wave" and "liquid 
grave," and look at the facts, and then decide. 
We turn now to the first Christian bap- 
tism. It was on the day of Pentecost, when 



214 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

three thousand were baptized. The record is 
brief, but full of instruction, if we study all 
the facts. The apostles preached the Gospel, 
and many were cut to the heart and inquired 
what they should do. They were told to re- 
pent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins; and it is 
said that "they that gladly received the word 
were baptized ; and the same day there were 
added unto them about three thousand souls." 
Now, we are called upon, with this short ac- 
count, to decide in our own minds as to 
probability in the case, touching the mode 
of the baptism of this large company. See- 
ing the word baptize does not indicate the 
mode, how w r as it probably done? The 
apostles were Jews, and so were the converts; 
they were all used to the religious use of 
water under the law, and were accustomed to 
the "divers baptisms" still practiced, and 
needed no instruction as to what baptism 
was, or how it was performed. But, as we 
have seen, the most, if not all these familiar 
baptisms, were by sprinkling; and there is 
absolutely no proof in existence that any of 
them were by immersion. The converts 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 215 

would, therefore, most naturally expect bap- 
tism by sprinkling. But, if not, how much 
time was there for immersing the multitude? 
Surely, none of them came expecting it, so 
as to be prepared with changes of clothing; 
and there is no proof that the apostles em- 
ployed help. Afterward, when baptized con- 
verts were numerous, and some were known 
to be qualified, they did have others assist; 
but now they stood so nearly alone that they 
scarcely employed help. The indications are 
against the supposition. It was nine o'clock 
before they began preaching; and it is not 
likely the preaching was over, and the inqui- 
ries made, and the counsels given, and the 
real penitents selected and examined, so that 
the baptisms could begin, till after noon. 
This left the time entirely too short to handle 
each person separately, as in immersion. 
Then, where did they find water? There 
was no river there. Jordan was twenty-eight 
miles distant; the brook Kedron was small, 
dry in dry weather, and turbulent in wet, and 
utterly unsuitable. But immersionists cry, 
lustily, "The pools! the pools!" Well, there 
were a few pools and water-pipes; but there 



2l6 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

is no probability that these could be used for 
such a purpose. There were two pools in 
the vicinity — Siloam and Bethesda. The first 
was perhaps a mile distant; was flowing wa- 
ter, used for family purposes, and can hardly 
be supposed available, if it was of size and 
shape to adapt it to that end. I think no 
one believes the baptisms took place in it. 
Bethesda held water enough, but was not in 
condition, nor available. It was within the 
precincts of the Temple, under the control 
of the priests, and used for washing the 
animals offered in sacrifice. If obtainable, 
the water was not "pure water," after the 
service it was rendering in washing animals 
for the altar; and the priests, who controlled 
it, were not just then in a very amiable frame 
of mind toward this new religion, and were 
not likely to be so accommodating to the 
apostles as to permit them to immerse three 
thousand converts to this new faith, which 
they abhorred as the deadly foe to Judaism. 
The burden of proof, both in regard to the 
necessary time and facilities, is with those 
who affirm they were immersed. Plainly, the 
probabilities are all against the supposition. 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 21 7 

The next case 'is that of the Ethiopian 
nobleman — the Eunuch. The record is in 
Acts viii, 26-40. The facts are few and sim- 
ple. This case is a favorite with immer- 
sionists, being about the only example of 
apostolic practice which they press into pos- 
itive service. We call it apostolic, though 
Philip was not an apostle, since it was in 
apostolic times. But what are the facts? 
We must study them carefully, and permit 
not one to escape notice. 

The baptism took place on the road from 
Jerusalem to Gaza, in a place that was "des- 
ert." That means rough, untillable, uninhab- 
ited. The road crosses quite a mountainous 
region, and there is no river on the road. 
Judea does not abound in "broad rivers and 
streams." Jordan is the only river of any con- 
sequence in Palestine ; but that was far away, 
in the opposite direction from Jerusalem. If 
there had been a perennial stream in that 
section, it would have been noted as a river, 
and would have been named. There is not 
the slightest probability that there was a run- 
ning stream there large enough to immerse a 
man in. And yet there was water; for 



2l8 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

"they came unto a certain water!" That is 
all. Whether it was a fountain, spring-branch, 
well, brook, or cistern, does not appear. It 
evidently had no name, and most likely had 
been provided for some temporary purpose, 
as he who first saw it evinced surprise. That 
" desert" could not have been better supplied 
with water than the valley of Gerar, where 
wells had to be dug for the cattle. Kitto 
says: "The Jordan is the only river of any 
note in Palestine, and besides it there are 
only two or three perennial streams. The 
greater number of the streams which figure 
in the history and find a place in the maps 
are merely torrents or water-courses." Mr. 
Mitchell, in his Ancient Geography, after 
describing Jordan, Jabbok, Gadara, Heshbon, 
Kishon, Besor, and Kedron, says: "The larg- 
est only of the foregoing streams contains 
water all the year. The others are dry dur- 
ing the Summer." The fact that there was 
no stream of water in that "desert" of any 
note, or that has been found, in which im- 
mersion could take place, imposes the duty 
on the other side to prove immersion even 
possible in this case. If the word baptize 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 219 

expressed that mode, we should have to infer 
the practicability of it; but, since it does not, 
we need the proof. The exclamation of the 
eunuch shows surprise at finding any water 
in the " desert." Riding along in the char- 
iot, listening to Philip, he exclaims: K< Idon! 
kudor!" ("Behold! water!") Nothing is said 
of the quantity. The particle ti means some 
or any, and would scarcely have been used 
of a living stream, when it is known that 
all such streams, and many mere wet-weather 
torrents, were named and called rivers. The 
history of the country, as well as its physical 
geography, proves that water was scarce — 
much too scarce to accommodate immersion- 
ists. But we must look again. 

The great fact is that "they went down 
into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, 
and he baptized him." The going "down" 
was not the immersion? for they "both went 
down." The going into the water was not 
the immersion, for they "both went into the 
water." They went down from the chariot; 
and they went into the water far enough to 
use it with the hand, as they probably used 
no vessel. Then, after they both went down 



220 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

into the water, the. baptism took place — "he 
baptized him." How, the word does not tell 
us; and the fact that they went down into 
the water does not tell us. We might admit 
that they entered the water, and yet find no 
immersion; but there is no proof that they 
entered it so much as with their feet. But, 
since the jingle of the words in our version 
indicates an entrance, w r e must look at the 
prepositions, and see if the entrance is really 
expressed. 

I intend no extended discussion of eis and 
ek, but a brief illustration of their force and 
use. The preposition eis expresses motion 
toward, or approach unto, a given point or 
place; but the idea of an entrance, if there 
be an entrance, must be gathered from the 
general structure of the sentence, and not 
from the natural force of the preposition. 
To and unto are just as literal renderings as 
"into." The usual method of expressing an 
entrance into any place or thing by this prep- 
osition is by employing it as a prefix to the 
verb. When it is made a prefix to the verb, 
and then follows the verb as a preposition, an 
entrance is expressed; but, when this double 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 221 

use does not occur, the entrance is not ex- 
pressed. The Greek is full of illustrations 
of this rule; but I will only refer to John 
xx, 1-8. In this paragraph we have several 
examples: "The first day of the week Com- 
eth Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet 
dark, eis to mnemeion [unto the sepulcher], and 
seeth the stone taken away ek ton mnemeion 
[from the sepulcher]." Here we have eis and 
ek, "unto" and "from," when there was no 
entrance — no "into" nor "out of;" for Mary 
did not go into the sepulcher. "Peter there- 
fore went forth, and that other disciple, and 
came eis to mnemeion [to the sepulcher]. So 
they ran both together: and the other disciple 
did outrun Peter, and came first eis to mne- 
meion [to the sepulcher]. And he stooping 
down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes 
lying; yet went he not in [on mentoi eiseltJieii\. 
Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and 
went into the sepulcher, and seeth the linen 
clothes lie, and the napkin, that w r as about 
his head, not lying with the linen clothes, 
but wrapped together in a place by itself. 
Then went in also that other disciple, which 
came first to the sepulcher, and he saw, and 



222 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

believed. " Now, here we have eis in every 
instance where the approach to the sepulcher 
is expressed, where there was no entrance, 
and where it is said of the disciple that out- 
ran Peter that "he went not in;" and then, 
in the two instances following, where the en- 
trance took place and is expressed, the double 
use of eis occurs — that is, it occurs as the 
preposition, and also as the prefix to the 
verb, which is the proper way of expressing 
an entrance. The entrance of Peter is ex- 
pressed thus: "Kai eiselthen eis to mnemeion;" 
and the entrance of that other disciple thus: 
"Tate oun eiselthe kai ho alios mathetes." 
These examples sufficiently illustrate the use 
and force of these prepositions, out of which 
so much has been made; and all the criticism 
in the world can not change the conclusion 
reached in regard to the law governing the 
use of eis, while ek simply corresponds to it, 
expressing the opposite idea. Where eis is 
"to," ek is "from;" where eis is "into," ek 
is "out of," etc. Now, I wish not to be 
misunderstood in all this; for I know that eis 
is sometimes used as a preposition, and not 
as a prefix to the verb, where there is an 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 223 

entrance, as when one goes to a city or to a 
country; but, in all such instances, the en- 
trance is implied, or intimated in the nature 
of the case, or in something in the sentence 
besides the preposition. The force of the 
preposition does not express it. This is all 
that is necessary to show the failure of all 
efforts to prove so much as an entrance of 
the water, in the case before us, even to the 
extent of moistening the sandals; and all this 
applies to the other passages where these 
phrases, "going down into the water," and 
"coming up out of the water," are found, 
as in the baptism of the Savior. There is 
positively nothing in this language that indi- 
cates any thing about the mode of baptism; 
and this, in connection with the improbability ' 
of there being water in that "desert" of suf- 
ficient depth for immersion, leaves this cele- 
brated case, which forms so large a part of 
the capital of immersionists, "high and dry" 
above the ragings of their noisy billows. 

And it should riot be forgotten that there 
w r as "sprinkling" in the text from which 
Philip was preaching to the eunuch. You 
remember that Philip found him reading a 



224 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

passage which is in the fifty-third chapter of 
Isaiah, and that his book was not divided 
into chapters and verses as ours is; and then 
you will observe that he was reading Isaiah's 
prophetic description of the Messiah, so that 
the paragraph he was reading, but a few lines 
above the one at which Philip arrested his 
attention, contained these words, "So shall 
he sprinkle many nations," etc. The evan- 
gelist could not expound the paragraph with- 
out encountering these words, and he must 
necessarily apply them in some way to the 
work of Christ. How could he explain them 
without referring to the religious use of 
water? And how could he apply them to 
Christ without pointing to the moral signifi- 
cance of the use of water? And, then, how 
could he make the sprinkling represent a 
moral cleansing without making it represent 
the same moral cleansing that baptism always 
represents. But if he made the "sprinkling" 
represent a moral cleansing, and the exact 
moral cleansing that baptism always repre- 
sents, how could he fail to explain this 
sprinkling as a prophetic description of the 
baptism ordained by the Messiah? Deny 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 225 

this, and the whole allusion is inexplicable; 
admit it, and the whole passage is plain, and 
the eunuch's allusion to water, as though 
Philip had just been speaking of water, is 
easily understood, and the conclusion be- 
comes irresistible that Philip had explained 
the "sprinkling" as denoting baptism. 

Our next example is the baptism of Saul 
of Tarsus. There are two points in the his- 
tory of this case which can never be harmo- 
nized with the idea that he was immersed. 
The first is, that he was baptized in the house, 
in a private dwelling in Damascus; and the 
second is, that he was baptized in a standing 
posture. The first is the great fact, while the 
second beautifully coincides with the known 
circumstances of the case. The record is in 
Acts ix, 17-19: "And Ananias went his 
way, and entered into the house; and putting 
his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the 
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in 
the way as thou earnest, hath sent me, that 
thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled 
with the Holy Ghost. And immediately 
there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: 
and he received sight forthwith, and arose, 

*5 



226 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

and was baptized. And when he had re- 
ceived meat, he was strengthened." Saul, 
the persecutor, had received authority from 
the chief priests, to go to Damascus, and 
bind the disciples, and take them to Jerusa- 
lem for punishment. On his way, he was ar- 
rested by the appearance of Jesus of Naza- 
reth, and convinced of the truth of the 
doctrine he was aiming to destroy. In agony 
of soul he cried out, "Lord, what wilt thou 
have me to do?" He was told that he should 
learn that in Damascus. Then he was taken, 
blind and full of anxiety, to the city, to the 
house of Judas, on Straight Street. There 
he continued, in deepest penitence and prayer, 
three days and nights, without eating or 
drinking, and most certainly without rest. 
In the mean time Ananias was prepared by a 
vision from heaven for his holy mission, and 
was told where he would find Saul, and what 
he should say to him. The passage read re- 
lates the interview. Saul was a Jew, and 
needed not to be told what baptism was, or 
how it was performed. Ananias found him 
in the house, and no doubt found him pros- 
trate with fasting and grief. Without delay, 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 227 

he fulfilled his mission; for, approaching him, 
he said, Brother Saul, ancHaid his hands on 
him, and pronounced the words recorded. 
Then immediately the scales fell, and forthwith 
he received his sight, and arose, and was bap- 
tized. The narrative forbids the idea of de- 
lay, or of leaving the house. He had taken 
no refreshments since he came, and of course 
he was greatly weakened; but after he was 
baptized, he took food and was strengthened. 
It is as plain as if said in so many words, 
that he received refreshments before he left 
the house, after Ananias "entered into the 
house," and found him there. He was then 
in condition to go out to the synagogue, 
whither he went, and preached Christ unto 
the people. Now, here is the whole case : 
We find him "in the house;" we see how 
brief was the interview, and that the w T ords 
"immediately" and "forthwith" are em- 
ployed to indicate the rapidity with which 
the events of that interview occurred ; and 
then the recognition of his weakness from 
fasting comes in to assure us, beyond doubt, 
that there was no leaving the house, nor wan- 
dering away in the search of a river or pool, 



228 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

and then coming back again/ before the re- 
freshments were taken. It is a plain case of 
baptism in a private family dwelling-house. 
We leave it for those who imagine him im- 
mersed, to imagine, contrary to the record, 
all the conditions of the immersion. 

But he arose {anastas, stood up) and was 
baptized. In Acts i, 15, we have precisely 
the same expression in regard to Peter, where 
there can be no doubt that he stood on his 
feet: "And in those days Peter stood up 
[anastas'] in the midst of the disciples, " etc. 
This is the exact idea conveyed by anastas. 
Peter " stood up," and Saul "stood up and 
was baptized." This agrees with the com- 
mand, as given by Ananias, Acts xxii, 16: 
"And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be 
baptized." The original, anastas baptisai, is, 
literally, stand up and be baptized. This is to 
the point, and conclusive. Saul was baptized, 
in a private house, in the city, standing on his 
feet! Here we leave the case. 

We will now accompany Peter from Joppa 
to Cesarea, and with him enter the house of 
Cornelius, the devout centurion, and witness 
the baptism of the first Gentile converts to 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 229 

the Christian faith. We need not await to 
study the visions of the parties, by which one 
was induced to send, and the other to go 
when sent for; nor need w r e linger by the 
way to ponder the emotions and meditations 
of each, as the one gathered his friends and 
waited the strange, expected guest, and the 
other pursued his anxious journey, on a mis- 
sion so novel, and as yet uncertain in its full- 
est meaning. We are already at the threshold 
of the centurion's house, and the interview 
begins. "As Peter was coming in, Cornelius 
met him, and fell down at his feet, and wor- 
shiped him. Peter took him up, saying, 
Stand up ; I myself also am a man. And as 
he talked with him, he went in, and found 
many that were come together. " Here we 
are, all in the house together. Peter asks 
why he had been sent for; Cornelius rehearses 
his vision, and the instruction of the angel; 
the last of Peter's misgivings depart, and he 
opens his ministry in faith. We pass over 
the sermon. It w r as worthy the occasion. It 
was of Jesus and the resurrection, and God's 
method of pardon, and closed with an appeal 
to the testimony of the prophets. "While 



230 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost 
fell on all them which heard the word. And 
they of the circumcision which believed were as- 
tonished, as many as came with Peter, because 
that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift 
of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak 
with tongues, and magnify God. Then an- 
swered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that 
these should not be baptized, which have re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost as well as we? And 
he commanded them to be baptized in the 
name of the Lord/' This is all we know 
about this bapptism. But it will be observed 
that the whole service was in the house. There 
is not the shadow of a hint that any part of 
it was outside, or that there was any delay. 
Indeed, the hints are all in the opposite di- 
rection ; and, the more we study them, the 
more we see the folly of supposing that these 
Gentiles were taken out to a river or pool, 
and immersed. The baptism was suggested 
to Peter, and justified, by the fact that they 
had already been baptized by the pouring out 
of the Holy Ghost; for thus he explains it 
himself, in his rehearsal, when, after his return 
to Jerusalem, they of the circumcision con- 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 23 I 

tended with him. In this defense, he said: 
''And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost 
fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, 
how that he said, John indeed baptized with 
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost." If, when the Holy Ghost fell on the 
apostles at the beginning — that is, on the day 
of Pentecost — they were thereby baptized, as 
we know they were ; so here, when the Holy 
Ghost fell on these Gentiles, as on the apos- 
tles, they also were baptized by this outpour- 
ing ; and as they had the spiritual baptism, 
they ought to have its outward sign, which is 
baptism with water. Thus Peter reasoned, 
and thus the Church decided, when they held 
their peace and glorified God. 

But we have another very suggestive hint 
in the apostle's way of calling for the water 
with which to administer the baptism. They 
were all in the house, and the water must be 
brought and handled, if the baptism took place 
in the house; or they must go out and find 
the water, and find it plentiful and accessible, 
if immersion was contemplated. The people 
and the water must be brought together. If 



232 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

the apostle had contemplated the removal of 
the people, and asked for difficulties or pro- 
hibitions, he would have said, Can any man 
forbid the people? But since he did not do 
that, but alluded to a possible prohibition of 
the water, he evidently had the conveyance 
of the water and the handling of the water in 
view. This is plain and natural. It harmo- 
nizes well with the notion that the baptism 
was there in the house, where they were 
assembled; but it seems awkward, if a river 
was to be visited. A German divine has 
well said that the inquiry of Peter, when put 
into the language of modern etiquette, would 
run thus: "Will some one present be kind 
enough to furnish us a little water, that these 
rmy now be baptized therewith, seeing they 
have already been baptized with the Holy 
Ghost?" The appeal was to those of the 
circumcision, who came with him from Joppa, 
whose concurrence he evidently desired. 

But, leaving this congregation still in the 
house, we pass over into Macedonia, and fall 
into company with Paul and Silas, who had 
been called there by a vision, as Peter had 
been to Cesarea. We find them, as the first- 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 233 

fruits of their ministry, baptizing Lydia and 
her household, in whose house they find a 
home. Here Paul cast out a " spirit of divi- 
nation " from a damsel who brought gain to 
her masters, and by this miracle excited the 
rage of those whose income had been so sud- 
denly cut off. The result was, a tumult was 
raised, and Paul and Silas were arrested, and 
beaten with "many stripes," and cast into 
prison. Following them, we find that they 
were not looked upon as ordinary prisoners. 
The jailer was charged to keep them safely; 
and he intended to- be faithful to his respon- 
sibility, knowing that his life would pay the 
forfeit if he proved remiss. Having received 
such a charge, he "thrust them into the 
inner prison, and made their feet fast in the 
stocks." After this precaution, he felt re- 
lieved of care, and went to sleep. But these 
prisoners did not sleep. "At midnight, Paul 
and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: 
and the prisoners heard them. And sud- 
denly there was a great earthquake, so that 
the foundations of the prison were shaken : 
and immediately all the doors were opened, 
and every one's bands were loosed. And 



234 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

the keeper of the prison awaking out of his 
sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he 
drew out his sword, and would have killed 
himself, supposing that the prisoners had 
been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, 
saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all 
here. Then he called for a light, and sprang 
in, and came trembling, and fell down before 
Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and 
said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And 
they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And 
they spake unto him the word of the Lord, 
and to all that were in his house. And he 
took them the same hour of the night, and 
washed their stripes; and was baptized, he 
and all his, straightway. And when he had 
brought them into his house, he set meat be- 
fore them, and rejoiced, believing in God with 
all his house." (Acts xvi, 25-34.) 

Here are several notable things: 1. Paul 
and Silas were committed to prison under a 
strict charge that they be kept safely. 2. 
Under the pressure of this charge, the keeper 
" thrust them into the inner prison, and made 
their feet fast in the stocks/' 3. They sang 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 235 

and prayed at midnight, until the earthquake 
occurred. 4. The keeper slept where he 
could see the door of the inner prison. 5. 
When he saw the doors all open, he was 
alarmed; and, thinking the prisoners were 
gone, he was about to take his own life, in 
order to avoid a public execution. 6. Paul 
could see him in his apartments, from the in- 
ner prison, showing that the keeper lived in 
the same building; and, seeing him get his 
sword, the prisoner cried out to him to desist 
from his desperate purpose. 7. The keeper 
called for a light. While Paul could see him, 
he could not see Paul, for the inner prison 
was darker than the keeper's apartments. 8. 
He sprang in, from his own room, of course, 
into the inner prison, and fell down before 
them, and asked what he should do. 9. He 
brought them out — not out of the prison 
building, but out of the inner prison. This 
brought them into the common prison hall, 
located between the inner prison or dungeon, 
no doubt, and the apartments occupied by 
the keeper and his family. 10. Here the 
household gathered, as was most natural, 
under the excitement; and here the apostles 



236 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

spoke the word of the Lord unto all that 
were in the house; and here water was 
brought, with which the lacerated backs of 
these men of God were washed ; and here, 
without doubt, the baptism took place. 

Is there any possibility of mistake at this 
point? I certainly think not; and yet im- 
mersionists struggle desperately to get all 
these parties out of the building, and away 
in search of a river, before the rite was per- 
formed. All that can be said on that sub- 
ject, however, is in the words, "he brought 
them o.ut. " It is assumed, contrary to the 
probabilities in this case, that this took them 
out of the prison. I say, "contrary to the 
probabilities, " for the reason that all the in- 
dications are that the jailer lived under the 
same roof with the prison, and the phrase, 
"he brought them out," can only apply to 
the "inner prison," into which he sprang. 
This is confirmed by the reflection that the 
jailer had not yet heard the word of the 
Lord, and w r as not yet in condition of mind 
to take the hazard of removing the prisoners 
from the prison, although his heart was 
touched, and he was prompted to show them 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 237 

kindness. They spoke the word of the Lord 
to all in the house ; but evidently these were 
now gathered in the prison; for the prisoners 
were not taken into the family residence till 
after their stripes were washed, and the 
household baptized. After this, they were 
taken into the house for refreshments. This 
is all natural, orderly, and in keeping with the 
positions and relations of the parties. But to 
imagine them all, the jailer, his whole house- 
hold, and the prisoners, out of the prison 
building, in the dark, contrary to the law, 
and in jeopardy of the jailer's life, wandering 
through the streets of the city of Philippi, 
between midnight and daylight, in search of 
conveniences for immersion, is making too 
heavy a draft on the credulity of intelligent 
people. Nor is the supposition that the 
prison was provided with a pool convenient 
for the purpose less violent. There is really 
no hypothesis that will meet all the facts re- 
corded, and explain all the allusions in the 
record, except the one just given. But this 
is utterly fatal to the idea that there was any 
immersion in this baptism. And the language 
and conduct of the apostles, the next day, 



238 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

when the magistrates sent the under officers 
to the keeper of the prison, saying, "Let 
those men go," forbids the supposition that 
they had been out in the night. The keeper 
reported this to Paul, saying, "Now therefore 
depart, and go in peace." But Paul indig- 
nantly refused, and said: "They have beaten 
us openly, uncondemnned, being Romans, and 
have cast us into prison ; and now do they 
thrust us out privily?, Nay verily; but let 
them come themselves and fetch us out. 
And the Serjeants told these words unto the 
magistrates : and they feared when they heard 
that they were Romans. And they came and 
besought them, and brought them out, and 
desired them to depart out of the city. And 
they went out of the prison, and entered into 
the house of Lydia: and when they had 
seen the brethren, they comforted them, and 
departed." Now, all this indignation is in- 
compatible with the idea that they had been 
out of the prison "privily," to baptize the 
family, or for any purpose whatever; and the 
phrase, "they went out of the prison," when 
they left the keeper's house with his benedic- 
tion, is proof positive that they were not out 



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 239 

of prison while they were in his house. 
Here, then, is baptism performed where im- 
mersion can not be supposed possible, with- 
out the most positive proof, the least particle 
of which does not exist. And here we take 
captive the immersion theory, and commit it, 
bound with chains of adamant, to the stocks 
and dungeon of aji inner prison, while all its 
friends are unable to invoke an earthquake to 
move a bolt or jar a link! 

These are all the baptisms of the New 
Testament which are supposed to indicate 
any thing as to the mode. Some of them 
must have been by sprinkling, to have any 
meaning. Not one is proved to have been 
by immersion, nor can there be a reasonable 
probability in that direction ; while the im- 
mersion of the three thousand on the day of 
Pentecost was almost certainly impossible. 
Of the others, one was in the "desert," far 
from any river, with the indications all against 
immersion; two were "in the house," in pri- 
vate dwellings; and the last, within the walls 
of the Philippian prison, in the darkness of 
the night! 



24O CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 



Discourse VIII. 

BURIED BY BAPTISM. 

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized 
into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore 
we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like 
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of 
his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrec- 
tion: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with 
him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that hence- 
forth we should not serve sin." — Rom. VI, 3-6. 

IT is generally conceded, that, if immersion 
is taught in the Bible, it is here; and, if 
it can not be found here, but few persons 
will insist that it is the exclusive mode of 
baptism. 

The immersionist interpretation of this pas- 
sage is well known. It assumes that baptism 
is a burial of the physical man in literal water; 
and it finds a resemblance between this burial 
of the body in water and the burial of Christ 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 24I 

in the grave, and a resemblance between the 
emergence of the body from the water and 
the resurrection of Christ from the dead. It 
thus makes baptism a representation of the 
burial and resurrection of Christ. I have sev- 
eral serious objections to this interpretation, 
and will mention some of them, before taking 
up my own exposition. 

First. I object to confounding the " burial' ' 
with the "baptism." The two things are dis- 
tinct, and should not be confounded. The 
terms are not synonymous, nor are they in- 
terchangeable. It is absurd to say we are 
immersed by an immersion, or that we are 
buried by a burial; therefore the " baptism" 
is one thing and the "burial" is another 
thing. It is by the perpetration of this mis- 
take that immersionists gather nearly all the 
comfort this Scripture affords them. 

Second. I object to this interpretation that 
it violates all rule and authority by making 
some of the terms in this one process literal, 
and others figurative. It makes the "burial" 
literal, and the "death," the "planting," and 
the "crucifixion" figurative. These terms are 
all predicated of the same subject, in the same 

16 



242 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

passage, and describe different parts of one 
process or experience, and are therefore all 
literal or all figurative. 

Thii'd. I object to this interpretation that 
it utterly mistakes the points of the compari- 
son which the apostle makes, and substitutes 
for them other points of comparison which 
are not in the passage, and could not have 
been in the writer's mind. It assumes that 
the comparison is between baptism and the 
burial and resurrection of Christ. It sees in 
the act of putting the body under the water 
a representation of the burial of Christ; and, 
in the lifting of the body from the water, it 
sees the rising of Christ from the grave repre- 
sented. This is the great point in the inter- 
pretation. If it is wrong here, it is wrong 
throughout; and it is wrong here, egregiously 
wrong. There is absolutely no such compar- 
ison in the passage. . This will come out fully 
further along; but now I remark that the com- 
parison is not at all between baptism, on the 
one hand, and the burial and resurrection of 
Christ, on the other hand. Baptism is not 
in the comparison at all. The comparison is 
wholly between the crucifixion, death, and 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 243 

burial of Christ, on the one side, and the 
mystical crucifixion, death, and burial that 
takes place in us when we pass from the nat- 
ural to the spiritual state, on the other side; 
and this comparison goes far enough to take 
in the resurrection of Christ, on one side, 
and the newness of life in which the Chris- 
tian walks, on the other. This blunder is a 
serious one. It obscures the meaning of the 
passage, destroys its beauty and harmony, 
and leads honest people to imagine that they 
have been "buried with Christ, " when they 
have not so much as caught a glimpse of 
the high significance of this Scripture. If the 
comparison is as is claimed, why do the advo 
cates of this interpretation invariably leave 
out the "crucifixion," and restrict the analogy 
to the "burial?" 

Fourth. I object to this interpretation that 
it confuses and confounds the sacraments 
by putting baptism where the Bible puts 
the Lord's-supper. In the Lord's-supper we 
show forth the Lord's death. This is the 
design of the Supper. But this interpreta- 
tion makes baptism show forth or represent 
the death and burial of Christ. It places 



244 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

baptism where it does not belong, and gives 
it a meaning it was never intended to have; 
and, worse still, it destroys the design and 
significance of the rite as Christ ordained it. 
Baptism relates not to the death and burial 
of Christ, but to the office and work of the 
Holy Spirit. This is its fixed and invariable 
meaning, as we shall see more fully in the 
direct exposition, while the Lord's-supper re- 
lates only to Christ's death, and not to the 
Holy Spirit. Baptism is the ordinance of 
the Holy Spirit, and the Supper is the ordi- 
nance of Jesus Christ. 

But these matters will all come up in the 
proper place, and we turn to a direct exam- 
ination of the passage before us. 

The apostle had just spoken of the reign 
of sin, on the one hand, and of the reign of 
grace through righteousness, on the other 
hand. He had affirmed broadly that " where 
sin abounded, grace did much more abound;" 
and then, anticipating an objection to this 
doctrine of the superabounding of grace, to 
the effect that it might encourage some to 
"continue in sin," and thus tend to licen- 
tiousness instead of holiness, he answers this 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 245 

objection, and shows that his doctrine leads 
to holiness, and not to sin. The answer 
which he presents to this objection is, that 
all who come under the reigning power of 
grace "die unto 'sin." This thought of a 
death unto sin is that which he enforces and 
elaborates throughout this chapter. Hence 
the language with which the chapter begins: 
"What shall we say then? Shall we con- 
tinue in sin, that grace may abound? God 
forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, 
live any longer therein? Know ye not, that 
so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ were baptized into his death? There- 
fore we are buried with him by baptism into 
death," etc. 

There is a sense in which all that Christ 
suffered in redemption is made over to be- 
lievers; and there is a sense in which all 
believers are united to Christ, and so identi- 
fied with him in the contemplation of the 
Deity that Christ's suffering is attributed to 
them ; so that it may be said that when Christ 
was crucified, they were crucified with him; 
when he died, they died with him; when he 
was buried, they were buried with him; and 



246 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

when he arose, they arose with him; but to 
predicate a crucifixion, death, burial, and res- 
urrection of believers on this ground alone 
would require a bold figure indeed. There 
is an actual experience to be gained, a real 
transformation into the image of Christ, by 
an inward fellowship in his sufferings. When 
the redemption is made over by faith, so that 
the believer shares it, and passes from the 
carnal into the spiritual life, then he comes 
into fellowship with Christ's sufferings, is 
made conformable to his death, and experi- 
ences the power of his resurrection. This is 
a veritable experience, which has its incipi- 
ency, its growth, and its full development; 
and this experience is described in the pas- 
sage under consideration. When we appre- 
hend Christ, and put him on, or enter into 
covenant with him, in baptism, we solemnly 
engage to die unto sin, and undertake to 
verify this whole process, which becomes a 
life-time work. The study of the terms and 
figures here employed to give expression to 
this profoundest experience of the soul, is 
our present task. 

I begin by recalling your attention to the 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 247 

distinction between the " baptism" and the 
"burial." That which is done by baptism is 
not baptism. The burial is effected by bap- 
tism; therefore, the burial is not baptism. 
Baptism is the agent or instrument, and the 
burial is the result. This thought, that the 
burial is not an act nor an instrument, but a 
result or effect, is essential. Let it be clearly 
apprehended and borne in mind; for here is 
the starting-point of much of the blundering 
of the immersionists in their interpretation. 
Baptism is an action, a momentary action ; 
but the result, the burial, is permanent. It 
is not temporary or momentary, but some- 
thing which must continue as long as we re- 
main dead unto sin and alive unto God. 

Then, the question arises, Is this a literal 
or a figurative burial? Or perhaps this point 
would be more clearly brought out if I ask, 
Is the burial the literal covering of the body 
in the water, or is it a spiritual result wrought 
in the spiritual nature? The immersionist, of 
course, sees nothing in the passage but a lit- 
eral burial of the body, by covering or sub- 
merging it in water. But he who affirms this 
ought also to interpret the other terms in the 



248 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

passage in just as literal a sense. The "cru- 
cifixion," the "planting," and the "death," 
are all as literal and as material as the 
"burial." Indeed, these terms all belong 
to the same class, and are descriptive of 
parts of the same process or experience, 
and to separate them is to do violence to 
all rules of interpretation, and common sense 
as well. But who can believe that the 
"crucifixion" is a literal crucifixion of the 
literal man? that the "planting" is a literal 
planting of the literal man? and that the 
"death" is the literal death of the literal 
man? He who can believe all this must pos- 
sess a stock of credulity that rarely falls to 
the lot of reasoning men ; and yet it is not a 
particle more absurd than it is to hold that 
the "burial" is literal, while the crucifixion 
and death are figurative. 

The true answer to the question concerning 
the nature of the burial will be found by as- 
certaining the subject of the burial. What is 
it that is buried? Every thing in the passage 
must hinge on the answer to this question. 
The immersionist says it is the body, the 
literal man. If this turns out to be true, he 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 249 

gains a point; but it is a point which brings 
trouble on every side. But let us look a 
little. We never bury a man till he is dead. 
Hence, a burial always implies a death — a 
previous death. If we hear that a man has 
been buried, we need not be told that he had 
previously died. So in this Scripture. Here 
is a burial, and it implies a previous death; 
but the previous death is expressed, as well 
as implied, and it is a death unto sin. And 
that which dies is the subject of the burial. 
There can be no question here. The iden- 
tical thing or person that dies is the thing or 
person that is buried. Then, if we can find 
out the subject of the death, we shall have 
found the subject of the burial. If it is the 
body that dies, the literal man, it is the body 
that is buried; but if it is not the body that 
dies, it is not the body that is buried. If it 
is the soul that dies, the soul is buried. Or 
if it is neither the body nor the soul that 
dies, literally, but something that pertains to 
either or both, then that thing which dies, 
whatever it is, must be the subject of the 
burial. Thus far, all is plain. But the ques- 
tion is, What is it that dies? It is not the 



250 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

body ; for Paul was yet alive in the body, and 
was writing to men in the body. It was not 
the soul; for the soul was undergoing an ex- 
perience that brought life, and not death. 
What, then, could it be? The question is 
vital, and we must move cautiously in quest 
of the answer. 

The apostle Paul^ in this Epistle, deals 
largely in personifications. Indeed, he per- 
sonifies almost every thing he mentions. 
The law, sin, death, life, grace, righteous- 
ness — all are personified; all these, in the 
vivid, animated style of the apostle, pass be- 
fore us as living personalities, clothed With all 
the powers and passions of active intelli- 
gences. In this way the carnal nature, the 
moral depravity of our being, is personified, 
and denominated the "old man," "the body 
of sin." This "old man" is the aggregate 
or assemblage of the sinful lusts and affec- 
tions of the unrenewed nature; and the great 
problem in Christianity, and in human expe- 
rience, is, as to the way of subduing or 
triumphing over this "old man" within us. 
This is the point in the apostle's argument, 
and he here teaches that the "old man" 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 251 

must be destroyed, or put to death by "cru- 
cifixion." 

Now to the question, What is it that dies? 
The answer is found in the manner of the 
death. How is it brought about? The apos- 
tle answers this right here in the text; and 
you observe I am not going abroad to gather 
into the text a forced rQeaning. Right here 
we read that the death which precedes the 
burial, the death of the subject of the burial, 
is brought about just as Christ's death was 
brought about — by crucifixion. "Knowing 
this, that our old man is crucified with him, 
that the body of sin might be destroyed, that 
henceforth we should not serve sin." Here 
it is. It is not the body that is "crucified," 
nor the soul, literally, but the "old man." 
The "old man" is crucified, dead, and bur- 
ied — crucified with Christ, dead with Christ, 
and buried with Christ. And here the "old 
man" is left. He is "put off," not to be 
put on again. He is buried, not to be un- 
buried again. He is not in the resurrection. 
That which is buried must remain buried. 
This is the death unto sin, with its cause, 
process, and result. 



252 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

But what does all this mean? Can it be 
possible that this "crucifixion" of the "old 
man" must come into the account? A mo- 
ment's reflection will satisfy any one — unless 
it be some one whose creed is in danger — 
that this whole experience is one process, 
given in the inverted order; the apostle be- 
ginning with the result, and tracing it back- 
ward to the starting-point. But the question 
may arise as to whether we have taken the 
right view of the "old man." May it not 
be that the "old man" means the body, the 
physical nature? If so, the body must be 
"crucified" before it becomes the subject of 
burial; and if the burial means an immersion 
in water, none but a dead body is fit for that 
ceremony! We learn elsewhere what the 
apostle meant by the "old man." We read 
the following on this point, in Colossians iii, 
8-10: "But now ye also put off all these; 
anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy com- 
munication out of your mouth. Lie not one 
to another, seeing that ye have put off the 
old man with his deeds; and have put on the 
new man, which is renewed in knowledge 
after the image of him that created him." 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 253 

Here is the "old man," and he has been 

"put off," but the body is not put off; nei- 
ther is the "old man" put on again, but the 

"new man" is put on in his place. To the 
same effect we read, in Ephesians iv, 22-24 : 

"That ye put off concerning the former con- 
versation the old man, which is corrupt ac- 
cording to the deceitful lusts ; and be renewed 
in the spirit of your mind ; and that ye put 
on the new man, which after God is created 
in righteousness and true holiness." The 
antithesis is between the "old man" and the 

"new man," not between the body and the 
soul. The "old man," like a garment worn 
out or polluted, is "put off;" and the "new 
man," like a new garment, fresh and clean, is 
"put on." Thus the "old man," following 
the figure in the text, is "crucified," and 
thereby put to death; and, being dead, must 
be "buried" out of sight. This consum- 
mates the process, so far as the "old man" 
is concerned. The "old man" does not rise, 
but the ensuing "newness of life" is found 
in the "new man," not in that which was 
crucified. The "old Irian" is "the flesh," 
"the body of sin," "the body of the sins of 



254 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

the flesh;" and, as certainly as there is mean- 
ing in language, this "old man" is the subject 
of the crucifixion, death, and burial mentioned 
in this passage of Scripture. Paul says (Gal- 
atians v, 24): "And they that are Christ's 
have crucified the flesh with the affections 
and lusts;" that is, they have crucified the 
"old man," the embodiment of the affections 
and lusts. What can be plainer than this, or 
more in harmony with the whole tenor of 
apostolic teaching? But, if I am right in 
this, it is evident that these terms are all to 
be taken in the figurative sense, and the idea 
of a physical burial of the physical man in a 
physical element is as foreign to the passage 
as is the thought of burying a man in the 
moon. 

And here I must recur to the mistake so 
often made in regard to the comparison, or 
analogy, found in this text. Immersionists, 
starting with the blunder of confounding the 
baptism and the burial, imagine that the com- 
parison is between the act of baptism and the 
burial and resurrection of Christ. This, allow 
me to repeat, is all wrong — wrong in incep- 
tion, and in every point of application. There 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 255 

is no resemblance between baptism, in any 
mode, and a crucifixion ; and, therefore, there 
is no starting-point, nor foundation, for this 
prevalent notion, which has misled so many. 
The comparison is not with baptism at all. 
The only comparison in the passage is be- 
tween the crucifixion, death, and burial of 
Christ, on the one hand, and the mystical or 
spiritual crucifixion, death, and burial of the 
"old man," "the body of sin," on the other 
hand. In this comparison there is force, be- 
cause here there are points of resemblance, 
which, in the bold, figurative style of the 
apostle, may be traced so as to justify the 
analogy, and vindicate the rhetoric as well as 
the argument of the inspired man of God. 

Now we must return to the word "buried." 
We have found the subject of the burial, and 
reached safe footing for the assumption of its 
figurative character; but we must study the 
figure a little more fully. Although the bu- 
rial is figurative, the real idea of a burial 
must be carried out, in order to justify the 
figure. We therefore need a definition of 
the word, as much as if the burial were lit- 
eral. What is a burial? There are many 



256 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

forms or modes of burial. Our impressions 
are mostly derived from modern customs. 
We very naturally associate with the word 
buried the kindred thought of a grave, with 
a coffin deposited, and earth shoveled upon 
it till the grave is filled. But our Savior was 
not buried in this way. His grave was a 
room hewn in the rock — a room with floor, 
walls, and ceiling, so to speak — and large 
enough to admit several persons; for a num- 
ber of the disciples walked into it after his 
resurrection. His body was taken from the 
cross and placed in this room, and the door 
was closed by rolling a large stone against it. 
Such was the burial of Christ; and the idea 
of representing or imitating such a burial by 
a sudden dip of the person in the water and 
out again, is far-fetched, to say the least of 
it. But still, regardless of mode, the word 
has a radical meaning, which we want to 
ascertain, if possible. Although, under the 
Roman law, a legal burial might be effected 
by casting a handful of earth upon the dead 
body, it is not to be supposed that the apos- 
tle had this loose provision of law in mind. 
We must rather assume that his idea of a 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 257 

burial accorded with the meaning of the 
word, which is to hide, to put away out of 
sight, to cover up. Let this, then, be the 
signification of the word to-day. It means a 
covering up out of sight. There is no burial 
where nothing is covered up. 

But, if a burial means that the thing bur- 
ied is covered up, the thing covered must 
be covered with something. There must be 
a covering — what is that? We have found 
the subject of the burial, and now w T e must 
find the covering. The "old man" is dead, 
and the "old man" is "buried;" and that 
which is buried is covered up out of our 
sight, and put away from our fellowship, as 
effectually as are our kindred when we bury 
them. But what can cover the "old man," 
"the body of sin?" Water will not do in 
this case, for all material elements are value- 
less in such an emergency. Now that he is 
"crucified," and is therefore in the "like- 
ness" of Christ's death, how is his burial 
"with Christ" effected? Now, mark all the 
steps; for we are at a crucial point, one that 
you must not lose. Well, that which is bur- 
ied is covered up; and it is always covered 

17 



258 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

zvith that into which it is buried. If a man is 
literally buried into the earth, he is covered 
with earth; if he is buried into the sand, 
the sand is the covering; and if he is buried 
into the water, he is covered with the water. 
Now, how is it with the "old man" — into 
what is he buried? Not into the earth, nor 
into the sand, nor into the water; therefore 
the covering in this burial is not earth, nor 
sand, nor water. But this is a burial by- 
baptism into death; therefore the covering is 
death. But what death is this? There was 
a death which preceded the burial, a death 
by crucifixion; but here is another death, 
which now becomes the covering, because 
the burial is into it. What death can this 
be? It is not the death of the body; for 
even those who insist on burying the body, 
refuse to bury it "into death." If they 
should make the death as literal as they do 
the burial, they would drown every one bur- 
ied; but they will not do that. They prefer 
the inconsistency we have pointed out, and 
the destruction of the apostle's rhetoric, to 
such a literal construction of death. Nor is 
the death which becomes the covering spirit- 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 259 

ual death, or the death in sin ; for the process 
in question is one which breaks the power 
of this death, and releases the soul from its 
grasp. Neither can it be the " death unto 
sin;" for that, in the order of right concep- 
tion of the process, is past. It was accom- 
plished by the crucifixion. What, then, is 
the death into which the old man is buried, 
and with which he is covered? In order to 
obtain the answer, we need not leave the lan- 
guage before us. Right here in the text we 
have it: "Know ye not, that so many of us 
as were baptized into Jesus Christ were bap- 
tized into his death? Therefore we are buried 
with him" etc. Here it is, so plain that we 
can not mistake the point. "Into his death;' 
that is, into the death of Jesus Christ. We 
are baptized into his death, and we are buried 
by baptism; so that we are buried into the 
death into which the baptism inducts us; and 
this death we know is the only covering for 
sin, the only covering for the old man, which 
is the "body of sin." The word "therefore," 
in the text, connects the burial with the death 
of Christ, and makes this the only grammat- 
ical construction. Here, then, is the process, 



26o CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

so far as it relates to the "old man:" The "old 
man" is crucified as Christ was crucified; the 
"old man" dies as Christ died; and the "old 
man" is buried as Christ was buried. And as 
the "old man" is buried into the death of 
Christ, he is covered up by that death. Like 
as the lid of the ark of the covenant, over- 
shadowed by the cherubim of glory, was the 
mercy-seat, which covered the tables of the 
law, so the sacrificial death of Christ, the true 
mercy-seat, covers the sins of all that are 
"crucified" with him. "Blessed is the man 
whose sin is covered." 

It has already been said that this burial is 
not a momentary affair, but a permanent re- 
sult. I wish to emphasize this thought. 
The burial is not a ceremony, but a profound 
experience. It brings us into a new relation 
to Christ, a new state of spiritual activity, 
and makes us new creatures. Old things 
pass away, and all things become new. The 
language is not, "We were once for a mo- 
ment buried with Christ," but, " We are 
bziried" If we are in Christ to-day, we are as 
much buried with him now as we were at the 
hour of our entrance into the "newness of 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 26 1 

life." The aorist tense, here employed by 
the apostle, alludes to past time, to the period 
of crucifixion, death, and burial, but it also 
expresses a continued effect. When we say 
of a dead man that he is buried, we allude 
to a past occurrence, to the time when the 
burial took place; but we also include the 
thought that the man is yet in the grave. 
So this mystical burial was present with Paul 
and those to whom he wrote. And the effect 
metaphorically expressed by the burial must 
continue. To unbury the "old man" would 
be to give him back his life and power, and 
amount to an apostasy from Christ. He 
must remain beneath the covering of the 
atoning blood, so long as we remain dead 
unto sin, and our life continues hid with 
Christ in God. 

The metaphor of "planting" comes into 
this text by the act of the translators, rather 
than by the apostle. Paul was given to the 
use of mixed metaphors; but we could not 
be true to ourselves, and the text, if we did 
not remark that the word stimphutoi, rendered 
"planted," simply conveys the idea of uniting 
or growing together, as in the case of graft- 



262 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

ing, and can only mean that by crucifixion 
with Christ, as explained, we join Christ in 
his death, and so unite with him as to share 
its benefits. The whole idea is that by this 
process we reach the "likeness of Christ's 
death." There is no possible allusion to the 
mode of baptism in any metaphor this word 
may contain. 

The analogy between the resurrection of 
Christ and the "newness of life" does not 
imply that the burial ceases. The "old man" 
is "put off," not to be "put on" again. 
The "new man" takes his place, and comes 
into the comparison, as soon as the resurrec- 
tion of Christ is mentioned, "that like as 
Christ was raised up by the glory of the Fa- 
ther, even so we also should walk in newness 
of life." The "newness of life" is the proper 
antithesis to the death and burial of the "old 
man;" just as the putting on of the "new 
man " is the antithesis of the putting off of the 
"old man," in the other passages cited; and 
the resurrection of Christ is not symbolized in 
the passage, but is itself made the symbol or 
pattern, as well as the source, of the newness 
of life to the believer. How different is all 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 263 

this from the immersionist rendering, which 
virtually says "that like as Christ was raised 
up from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so must our bodies be raised out of the 
water by the arm of the preacher!" 

All this exposition, as far as developed, is 
corroborated by the other passage which 
speaks of burial in connection with baptism. 
I refer to Colossians ii, 10-12: "And ye are 
complete in him, which is the head of all 
principality and power: in whom also ye are 
circumcised with the circumcision made with- 
out hands, in putting off the body of the sins 
of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 
buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye 
are risen with him through the faith of the 
operation of God, who hath raised him from 
the dead." Here is the same experience, 
implying the same process, and reaching the 
same result. Here we find the same "old 
man," though not named, to be "put off" — 
"the body of the sins of the flesh." But 
here the metaphor of circumcision is brought 
in, and that of crucifixion omitted. The rite 
of circumcision becomes the illustration of the 
putting off of the body of the sins of the 



264 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

flesh. "In whom ye are circumcised," is 
just as positive, and as literal, as the burial. 
But there is no comparison drawn between 
the manner of circumcising and the result 
attained; neither is there any comparison 
between the manner of baptizing and the 
result reached, which is the burial. We can 
not argue from the burial to the manner 
of baptizing, any more than we can argue 
from the "putting off the sins of the flesh" 
to the manner of the circumcision. The 
circumcision is not literal, for it is a "cir- 
cumcision made without hands ;" that is, 
a spiritual circumcision, or the result which 
circumcision, when taken in its spiritual im- 
port, always indicates. So the "burial" is 
not literal, but spiritual ; that is, it is a spirit- 
ual result, which answ r ers to the religious 
meaning and design of baptism, and not to 
its mode or outward form. The "putting 
off the body of the sins of the flesh," in 
this passage, is the same as the "crucifixion 
of the old man," and the destruction of the 
"body of sin," in the text in Romans. In 
one place the body of sin is put to death and 
buried, in the other it is "put off;" in one 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. - 265 

place the burial is associated with ''cruci- 
fixion," in the other with M circumcision." 
In neither place is the mode of baptism 
brought into the comparison, and in neither 
place does the "old man" rise; but in both 
places the resurrection of Christ is made 
the pattern and pledge of newness of life: 
1 ' Wherein also ye are risen with him, 
through the faith of the operation of God" — 
not by the muscular power of the preacher's 
arm ! The truth is that, here in Colossians, 
the two rites, circumcision and baptism, are 
so blended in the illustration of this wonder- 
ful experience as to demonstrate the identity 
of their import, and to bring out the spiritual 
signification of each. The circumcision with- 
out hands is just as physical as is the burial 
in or by baptism. The preposition expresses 
agency. 

The tenacity with which men hold their 
traditional notions of a text which has been 
used to bolster cherished prejudices is most 
wonderful. Hence, we must look again at 
this language. Here is the pronoun "we.' 
The apostle says, "We are buried;" and 
does not this refer to the persons baptized, 



266 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

simply as men? Well, yes; the whole expe- 
rience is wrought within the person. The 
4 'old man" is "our old man;" and when "our 
old man is crucified," we are crucified; and 
when he dies, we die to sin; and when he is 
buried into Christ's death, we are buried. Yes ; 
and when the "newness of life M is raised up in 
us, we are risen with Christ. Just so, when 
the "old man is put off," we put him off; 
and when the new man is "put on," we put 
him on ; and we are the new creation. Our 
identity remains; but all this does not make 
the "old man" and the "new man" the 
same thing; nor do they occupy the same 
place in the metaphorical representations of 
the apostle. Paul uses the pronoun else- 
where quite as emphatically, when no one 
will imagine for a moment that he had any 
physical action on his person in view. Read 
Galatians ii, 20: "I am crucified with Christ: 
nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ 
liveth in me: for the life which I now live in 
the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of 
God, who loved me, and gave himself for 
me." Here is the same thought. "I am 
crucified" — not literally, nor is the whole 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 267 

person the subject of the crucifixion ; but, as 
he more definitely states in Romans, the "old 
man " is crucified, dead, and buried wtth 
Christ, and the new man, or newness of life, 
the life of faith in the Son of God, ensues. 
Turn as you w r ill, you can not escape this 
style of thought. This personification of the 
carnal nature, and the metaphorical cruci- 
fixion, death, and burial of the "old man," 
is the key to much that is otherwise obscure 
in these Epistles, and, when clearly appre- 
hended, it unlocks many mysteries, and sheds 
a flood of light upon some knotty questions 
in theology, in regard to the deepest expe- 
riences of the divine life. The experience it 
unfolds is vital. Unless the "old man" is cru- 
cified with Christ, dead and buried with him, 
so that "we" are brought or grafted into his 
death, we can have no fellowship with Christ, 
and must fail to reach the likeness of his 
resurrection. We can not, therefore, afford 
to fritter away a truth so important and pre- 
cious as this; and it does seem to me that 
to reduce this crucifixion, death, and burial 
with Christ "into his death/' to a sudden 
dip of the body in water and out again, is 



268 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

little short of handling the Word of God 
deceitfully. 

But here is another question — one which 
you have, perhaps, anticipated : What has bap- 
tism to do with this burial? Or perhaps the 
real question is, Why is this effect, this con- 
summation of the death unto sin, ascribed to 
baptism, as the agent of its accomplishment? 
We must weigh this point well; for you see 
that it reaches the heart of the subject. 

This will also suggest the question as to 
w r hat baptism is intended, whether the out- 
ward rite or that of the Holy Spirit; but I 
shall cheerfully accept the statement that the 
word is to be taken in its most obvious 
sense — that it means the ordinance estab- 
lished in the Church, to be administered by 
the use of water, wherever the Gospel is 
preached. Some insist that the baptism of 
the Spirit is meant, and that water is not in 
the passage. I make no point of this kind. 
The truth is never advanced by the assump- 
tion of extreme ground in its defense, not 
warranted by the facts, or the force of the 
words employed. The word baptize occurs 
a few times in the Scriptures in connection 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 269 

with the work of the Spirit, so that there is 
a baptism of the Spirit, which is the real 
baptism, of which that with water is but the 
symbol, or outward expression. But it is 
probable that the word baptism passes over 
from the outward rite to the inward work, as 
a metaphor, because of the relation between 
the ordinance and that which it represents. 
This relation is not accidental, nor is it tem- 
porary or variable. It is a relation chosen by 
divine wisdom, and established by divine or- 
dination, and is therefore definite, fixed, and 
unalterable. When this thought is properly 
developed, it w r ill show at once why the work 
of the Spirit is called a baptism, and why the 
whole work of salvation, which is wrought 
only by the Holy Spirit, is ascribed to 
baptism. 

In order to the development of this foun- 
dation principle, you must indulge a seeming 
digression. The work of salvation is divided, 
so to speak, into two departments. The first 
relates to the law of God, and our relation to 
the law, as sinners; and, for the purpose of 
distinguishing it, w r e call this the legal aspect 
of the scheme. The other department relates 



27O CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

to ourselves, to our interior state or condi 
tion, as depraved persons; and this we may 
designate the moral aspect of salvation. As 
sinners, we are under the law, under its 
curse, and liable to all its maledictions; and, 
within ourselves, we are spiritually blind, de- 
praved, dead. To effect our deliverance from 
this twofold helplessness, is the purpose of 
the plan of salvation revealed in the Gospel. 
In the nature of the case, the work of saving 
us must have a twofold bearing; it must af- 
fect our relation to the law, and it must work 
a transformation in our spiritual natures. 
Accordingly, to meet this twofold demand, 
there are two distinct personal agents re- 
vealed, each engaged in his own appropriate 
department; namely, the Son of God, and 
the Spirit of God. All that pertains to re- 
demption, properly speaking, or that concerns 
our relation to the divine law, is done by the 
Son of God himself, in his personal agency ; 
and all that relates to our inward condition, 
or that affects our interior state or spiritual 
life, is done by the personal agency of the 
Holy Spirit. Hence, every particular act or 
element of the work of salvation that is 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 27 1 

expressed in the Scriptures by a forensic 
term, is ascribed to Christ, and belongs to 
the legal aspect of the scheme; and every 
other part — that is, all that relates to the in- 
ward work, as enlightening, quickening, re- 
generating, renewing, etc. — is ascribed to the 
Spirit, and belongs to the moral aspect of 
the scheme. This distinction is not arbi- 
trary, nor is this distribution of the work and 
classification of terms an accidental or ficti- 
tious arrangement. The recognition of it is 
necessary to a proper understanding of the 
ordinances, and to right conceptions of many 
theological points connected with Christian 
experience. It is a distinction and distribu- 
tion founded in the nature of things, and es- 
tablished by the wisdom and eternal purpose 
of Him who worketh all things after the 
counsel of his own will. 

These two aspects of the plan of salvation, 
and the twofold work, were prefigured under 
the former dispensation. Pointing to our 
salvation from sin, in its twofold aspects, 
were two classes of typical services; namely, 
bloody sacrifices and watery ablutions. These 
related respectively to the redeeming blood 



272 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

of Christ and to the cleansing power of the 
Holy Spirit, and lasted till Christ died and 
the Holy Spirit was given. Then all the typ- 
ical bloody sacrifices were fulfilled in Christ, 
and all the typical washings with water were 
fulfilled in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 
This done, and the typical services were no 
longer in place. Their meaning was lost in 
their fulfillment; but, in their stead, two serv- 
ices were instituted, adapted to the new dis- 
pensation — the one a commemorative rite, 
pointing to the blood of Christ, already shed; 
and the other a symbolic ordinance, pointing 
to the purifying influence of the Spirit of 
God. The Lord's-supper recalls to the mem- 
ory of the Church precisely that which was 
prefigured by the bloody sacrifices of the 
law; and Christian baptism symbolizes that 
which the old watery ablutions adumbrated. 
There is, therefore, a fixed, definite, un- 
changeable relation between the Lord's-sup- 
per and the official work of the Redeemer. 
In this service, Christ's death is distinctively 
shown forth. It relates to Christ and to his 
work alone. The bread and wine are the 
symbols of redemption. The Lord's-supper 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 273 

is the sacrament of the Son of God, and re- 
lates to the legal aspect of salvation; and 
there is an equally direct and permanent rela- 
tion between the ordinance of baptism and 
the Holy Spirit. The water of baptism is 
the ordained emblem of the Holy Ghost 
working salvation within the soul. This is 
its invariable meaning and design. Apart 
from this it is without authority, and without 
sense or significance. Baptism is therefore 
the sacrament of the Holy Ghost. The work 
of the Spirit is the foundation of the ordi- 
nance; and baptism derives all its meaning, 
efficacy, and value from its relation to the 
Spirit, which it represents. It is on this ac- 
count that the work of the Spirit is some- 
times ascribed to baptism, and that the word 
baptism is applied to the Spirit, and used to 
denote the work of the Spirit. This is done 
by an easy figure of speech, in which cause 
and effect, and symbol and the thing symbol- 
ized, are rhetorically interchanged — a figure 
which is familiar to all students of the Bible, 
and misleads no one. 

This arrangement of the ordinances can 
not be reversed. The Lord's-supper does not 

18 



274 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

relate to the Holy Spirit, is not an emblem 
of the Spirit, and can not be made to repre- 
sent the work of the Spirit If applied to 
the work of the Spirit, its meaning is lost. 
It has its origin, its foundation, and its mean- 
ing in the official work of Jesus Christ in our 
redemption. So, on the other hand, baptism 
never relates to the Son, but always to the 
Spirit of God. It is not the symbol or em- 
blem of the work of the Son, and loses its 
meaning, and is perverted, the moment it is 
employed in emblematical representation of 
what he did or suffered. Fidelity to truth 
demands this demolition of the foundation of 
the immersionists' use of the text before us; 
for just here is their fearful mistake. Labor- 
ing under the erroneous impression that bap- 
tism might symbolize the death and burial 
and resurrection of Jesus Christ, immersion- 
ists have habitually forced this ordinance into 
a service it was never intended to perform. 
Losing sight of his death by crucifixion, and 
of his burial by being laid in a rocky sepul- 
cher — a room with door and walls — they have 
imagined a resemblance between the burial 
of Christ and the immersion of the body in 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 275 

water, and between the resurrection of Christ 
and the lifting of the body out of the water; 
and upon this forced analogy, without foun- 
dation in fact or authority in Scripture, they 
have erected their exclusive superstructure, 
which can only stand by robbing this apos- 
tolical description of the mystical crucifixion, 
death, and burial, which destroys the reigning 
power of the "old man," of its real meaning, 
and reducing the profoundest experience of 
the regenerated soul to the mere form of an 
ordinance, and perverting that ordinance by 
thrusting it into the place of the Lord's-sup- 
per! Misguided by this false light, multi- 
tudes have supposed that they have been 
"buried with Christ," and met the require- 
ments of this Scripture, when they have 
looked no further than to the physical cov- 
ering of their bodies in water, without cruci- 
fixion or death! The consequences of such 
radical error are too numerous and grave to 
be passed over mincingly. 

We must retain the ordinances in their 
appropriate places, and give them distinct- 
ively their appointed significations, if we 
would understand them or use them to edi- 



276 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

fication. The Lord's-supper represents the 
death of Christ, and baptism does not. Bap- 
tism represents the Holy Spirit in purifying 
the heart, and the Lord's-supper does not. 
Baptism is the ''sign of regeneration," the 
symbol of the inward spiritual washing that 
takes away our defilements and makes us one 
with the Lord. Taken out of this relation, 
and despoiled of this design, it is meaning- 
less and void; and when divorced from its 
legitimate w r ork, and forced into an unnatural 
service, what- wonder that it becomes a mys- 
tery, a snare, a mere form and tinsel in the 
Church, according to the caprice of men! 

Now we have reached the place for answer- 
ing the question as to what baptism has to 
do with the burial. Understanding the rela- 
tion between baptism and the Holy Spirit, 
the explanation of the relation of baptism 
to the "burial" of the "old man" into the 
death of Christ is natural and easy. The 
work of crucifying the "old man" is done by 
the Holy Spirit. No other power could nail 
him to the cross. The death unto sin, the 
result of the crucifixion, is by the same 
agency. No one will dispute this. What 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 277 

then? Why, the burial is but the consum- 
mation of the same process. But, if so, this 
entire work of conquering the "old man" 
and destroying the "body of sin" is really 
done by the Holy Spirit. Here the ground 
is firm. But why is all this ascribed to bap- 
tism? The reason is in the sense in which 
it is ascribed, which is now apparent. It is 
all explained by the relation between baptism 
and the Spirit. The effect, which is wrought 
by the Spirit, is ascribed to baptism by an 
easy figure of speech, in which the symbol 
is named for the thing symbolized. This is 
the whole of it. No other explanation has 
ever been given that obviates absurdities, and 
at the same time harmonizes the language 
and all the facts. 

This position may be illustrated by the lan- 
guage of Christ with reference to the other 
ordinance. When the Savior instituted the 
Supper, he broke the bread and gave it to 
his disciples, saying, "Take, eat; this is my 
body." It was not his body; but then it 
was the emblem of his body, and was to 
stand for his body, in that sense, till the end 
of time. He added the words: "Which is 



278 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

given for you." It was not yet given, for he 
had not yet died; but, in his unchangeable 
purpose, the consecration was made. " Like- 
wise after supper he took the cup, and gave 
it to his disciples, saying, Drink ye all of 
this." He did not mean that they should 
drink the cup, but that which was in the 
cup. Then he added: ''For this is my blood 
of the new testament, which is shed for many 
for the remission of sins." It was not his 
blood literally, but only the fruit of the vine ; 
nor was his blood yet shed, for he had not 
yet been crucified; but then the relation be- 
tween the bread and wine and the body and 
blood of Christ, then established, to abide 
through all the future, explains and justifies 
the language. It was a figure of speech in 
which the container was put for the contained, 
the emblem for that which it represented. 
Nothing is more common in language, or 
more beautiful in rhetoric; and this is pre- 
cisely the way the apostle Paul ascribes to 
baptism that which was really wrought by 
the Holy Spirit. In one place it is said, 
"This is my body," when it was only the 
emblem of the body; and in the other place 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 279 

it is said, "By baptism," when it was by 
that which baptism always implies and rep- 
resents. The figure of speech is the same; 
and that the whole process of induction into 
Christ is by the Spirit, is too plain to need 
proof. The apostle elsewhere says: "For by 
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, 
and have all been made to drink into one 
Spirit." 

And now, brethren, I have given my an- 
swer to the question concerning the relation 
of "baptism" to the "burial," and flatter 
myself that the view presented meets all the 
conditions of the case, and unfolds the mean- 
ing and design of the two ordinances, with 
their respective foundations, and manifests the 
folly of Romanism in multiplying the sacra- 
ments beyond the mimber ordained by the 
Lord Jesus, as no antagonistic interpretation 
has ever done. And you will permit me 
to express the belief that this exposition, 
however imperfectly presented, rescues these 
somewhat famous Scriptures from most fright- 
ful abuse, and reveals in them a beauty and 
force and depth of meaning which can never 
be seen so long as the mode of baptismal 



280 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

administration is regarded as the central 
thought, or allowed to have any thing to 
do with this highly figurative language. In 
fact, the mode of baptism is not mentioned 
or alluded to, directly or indirectly, in this 
whole argument, and has no pertinency to 
the subject, while the design and spiritual 
meaning of baptism come in naturally, and 
explain the allusion. I bring nothing fanciful 
or far-fetched, nor do I seek to capture your 
concurrence by any brilliancy of rhetoric or 
display of elaborate criticism ; but I lay be- 
fore you what seems to me the most natural 
explanation, and the plainest that will bring 
out the beauty and force of the passage. 

I know that commentators, and men emi- 
nent for piety and learning, have accepted 
the statement that these- Scriptures allude to 
immersion; but I know, also, that most of 
those have been absorbed in other great 
issues, which they treated critically, while 
they looked upon the mode of baptism as 
an incidental matter, of no vital significance, 
and passed over it by simply following in the 
footsteps of trusted authors. I therefore re- 
spectfully decline permitting the authority of 



BURIED BY BAPTISM. 28 1 

great names to weigh aught in opposition to 
the well ascertained sense of the inspired rec- 
ord. I do not believe it in the power of 
human learning, ingenuity, or skill to find 
the mode of baptism here, without distorting 
the sense, and doing violence to the apostle's 
most striking conception of the death unto 
sin. I leave the subject with you, and pray 
that the light of divine truth may shine into 
our hearts until the mists of error and the 
film of prejudice shall be removed from our 
mental and spiritual vision. 



282 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



Discourse IX. 

SPIRIT BAPTISM. 

"He shall baptize you wkh the Holy Ghost, and with 
fire." — Matt, hi, ii. 

THE abruptness of the record introducing 
the ministry of John, by simply an- 
nouncing that he came preaching in the wil- 
derness of Judea, and that Jerusalem, and all 
Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, 
went out to him, and were baptized, has been 
mentioned in preceding discourses. The more 
we think upon it, the more we are impressed 
that the rite of baptism was not new to the 
Jewish people. They had in some way be- 
come familiar with it, and readily appre- 
hended the import of John's preaching, and 
the significance of the rite which he admin- 
istered. 

Another point is evident. These Jews 
were believers in the divine authority of the 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 283 

law of Moses, and were professing and cher- 
ishing the strictest loyalty to that law, even 
while submitting to the baptism of John. 
They must therefore have regarded the bap- 
tism of John as being entirley consistent with 
the law, if not as legitimately deducible from 
it. It is not supposable that there either 
was, or was thought to be, any departure 
from the law, in accepting John as a prophet, 
and his baptism as an institution of strictly 
Jewish origin and import. We must there- 
fore look into the habits and thoughts of the 
Jews, to ascertain the light in which they 
looked upon this baptism, and how they so 
readily accepted it as compatible with their 
allegiance to Moses, and the ceremonies 
which they received from him, and from 
their fathers. 

We do not find the word baptism in the 
law. It does not appear to have come into 
use until after the captivity in Babylon, as the 
term by which to designate the ceremonial 
washings enjoined by the law. But there is 
no trouble in tracing the use of this word, in 
this connection, in the later Jewish history. 
The use of the word in the Apocrypha, and 



284 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

in the New Testament, with reference to the 
Jewish washings, is sufficient for our purpose. 
In a former discourse, we found it used in 
the Apocrypha with reference to the cere- 
mony of "washing from a dead body." 
"He that washeth himself from a dead body, 
and toucheth it again, what availeth his wash- 
ing?" (Ecclesiasticus xxxiv, 25) Here are 
two words rendered wash in the same verse, 
and with reference to the same ceremony. 
The last one is the usual generic term for 
washings of all kinds, without respect to 
mode, and the first one is baptizo — a word 
which agrees with lotto, so far as mode is 
concerned, but conveyed to the Jewish mind 
the additional idea of a religious act, or cer- 
emonial cleansing; and this was the real 
nature of the washing to which it relates in 
this place. Such a use of the word proves 
that at least a portion of the legal washings 
among the Jews were known as baptisms. 
And this fact is confirmed by the passage in 
Mark vii, 3, 4, where it is said that the 
"Pharisees, and all the Jew r s, except they 
wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the 
tradition of the elders. And when they come 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 285 

from the market, except they baptize, they eat 
not. And many other things there be, which 
they have received to hold, as the baptism of 
cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables." 
No one doubts that these were religious 
washings, and had respect to the ceremonial 
law concerning contact with unclean persons. 
The Jews thought themselves liable to contact 
with the unclean in market-places; and as a 
precautionary measure, to avoid uncleanness 
in the eye of the law, they adopted the prac- 
tice of purifying or washing themselves cere- 
monially, after all occasions of exposure; and 
these "washings" were called baptisms. Of 
course they were not immersions. All the 
circumstances forbid that supposition, and the 
law they were following did not demand im- 
mersion. But they were baptisms, never- 
theless. 

I would also briefly recall the use of the 
word baptisms in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
where the application is to the legal washings 
of the Jews. "Which stood only in meats 
and drinks, and divers baptisms \_diaphoris 
baptismois~\, and carnal ordinances, imposed 
on them until the time of reformation." 



286 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

(Hebrews ix, 10.) Here the "baptisms" are 
4 'divers," numerous, and of different kinds; 
and they are not the superfluous baptisms 
voluntarily practiced by the Jews, or enjoined 
by tradition, but they are such as the law 
" imposed" upon them. The allusion is to 
the whole list of watery ablutions required 
by the law of Moses. Of this there can be 
no mistake. And in writing this Epistle to 
the Hebrews, the author of it was careful 
to use terms that Jews would understand, 
and to give such interpretations of the law as 
would stand the test of Jewish criticism. 
Otherwise, his whole purpose would have 
been thwarted. It is therefore preposterous 
to entertain a doubt that the Jews had come 
to know all their ceremonial uses of water 
under the law by the general name of bap- 
tisms. This is corroborated by their practice 
of baptizing proselytes, both before and after 
the Christian era. We can not believe that 
they would adopt this practice from Chris- 
tians; and to suppose they first learned it 
from John does not account for their prompt- 
ness in accepting a new rite at the hand of 
John. All the facts in Jewish history, before 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 287 

and since the coming of Christ, conspire with 
wonderful naturalness and irresistible force to 
prove that the Jews were acquainted with bap- 
tism before John began to preach it in the wil- 
derness. But if so, if they knew it at all, they 
knew it as the religious use of water, as pre- 
scribed by the law; and then this reference 
to the "divers baptisms" is perfectly natural, 
proper, and easily understood. Then, admitting 
that the Jews were thus acquainted with the rite, 
we can explain the abruptness of the record 
of the opening of John's ministry, and also 
the readiness of the popular acceptance of 
the rite of baptism. But all this takes us 
back to the law, to find out the manner of 
using the water in those ceremonial washings 
called baptisms. The exclusive immersionist 
can not afford to admit that any one of these 
washings was performed otherwise than by 
immersion; and yet he is unable to find a 
single one in all the law where immersion 
was required. On the contrary, he finds that 
in every instance, where the manner of using 
the water is prescribed at all, it is by sprink- 
ling; and he finds, furthermore, that in every 
case, where sprinkling is not required, the 



288 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

use of the water is expressed by a generic 
word which does not express mode at all. 
Alas for immersion, if the baptisms of the 
New Testament correspond with the "divers 
baptisms" of the law! 

The manner of the passing away of the 
legal services of the former dispensation has 
been hinted at; but here we ought to look 
directly at it. The sacrifices of the law were 
not arbitrarily set aside, but their typical im- 
port was first met by the sacrifice of the Son 
of God himself. Then the typical sacrifices 
became obsolete, and were allowed to cease. 
The feast of the passover was not rejected 
and arbitrarily abolished. The Savior hon- 
ored it with his presence, and celebrated it 
with his disciples, and then quietly trans- 
formed it into the commemorative rite which 
was appointed to be the memorial of his 
death till his coming again. He might have 
told the disciples that the paschal lamb had 
lost its significance, and that the feast should 
cease forever; and he might have devised 
something entirely new as the memorial of 
his death ; but he chose to merge the feast 
of the law into the eucharistic feast, to be 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 289 

perpetuated to the end of time. And the 
watery ablutions of the law might have been 
all set aside by the word of the Master. He 
could have shown that the moral cleansing 
which they represented was effected by the 
Holy Spirit, and that a new dispensation of 
the Spirit was at hand, so that all typical 
washings would be out of place ; but he chose 
to do nothing of the kind. He took those 
washings, which were now known as bap- 
tisms, just as he found them, and honored 
them by obedience, only refusing to obey the 
traditions which had been added by the 
" elders," and then merged them all into 
1 'one baptism," which he ordained as the 
symbol of the Holy Spirit, and made it the 
sign of regeneration — the emblematic washing 
of regeneration and renewing of the Holy 
Ghost. 

The importance of observing this order of 
the two Christian ordinances was set forth in 
the last discourse. We saw that one is the 
sacrament of the Son of God, and relates to 
the redemption of men from the curse of the 
law, and derives its meaning and value from 
its relation to Christ, and not from the manner 
19 



29O CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

of its administration. And we saw that the 
other has its foundation, its meaning and sig- 
nificance, in the work of the Holy Spirit; 
and that it relates to the moral aspect of the 
Gospel scheme of saving men, and is em- 
phatically the ordinance of the Holy Ghost. 
We can not too strongly insist upon this ar- 
rangement of the sacraments. It is not 
arbitrary, nor is it guess-work. It is founded 
in the essential nature of the ordinances, and 
is fundamental in the Gospel economy. It 
is a distinction that obtained under the law, 
and continues under the Gospel, and it is 
but simple justice to recognize its true bear- 
ing in this general discussion; for without it 
neither the foundation of the ordinances can 
be comprehended, nor the relation of the 
dispensations traced. 

We come back, then, to the primary as- 
sumption, that John's baptism was in keeping 
with Jewish rites; that it had a religious im- 
port which the Jews could understand; that 
it corresponded to the washings of the law, 
in that it was a ceremonial cleansing, signify- 
ing a purification of the soul and of the life; 
and that the water which was used in the 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 29 1 

ceremony was used in the way of ordinary 
religious washings or baptisms enjoined in 
the law. This baptism Jesus Christ himself 
received, though not in its ordinary accept- 
ance as a baptism of repentance. It was 
capable of adaptation to the exceptional case 
of our Lord, and even in this adaptation it 
still kept within the "righteousness of the 
law," for it fulfilled a " righteousness" which 
must have had respect to the law. It was a 
Jewish washing, and stood as a connecting 
link between the legal washings of the Jews, 
the "divers baptisms," and the "one bap- 
tism " of the Christian economy. But John's 
baptism, and the "divers baptisms," and all 
baptisms practiced by the Jews, pointed to a 
spiritual cleansing. Without this they were 
all meaningless. Christ therefore adopted a 
Jewish rite, and made it a Gospel rite. He 
did this of choice, and did it without any 
essential change in its nature, or any change 
whatever in its mode. He lifted it to a 
higher dignity, and gave emphasis to its 
meaning, but otherwise left it unchanged. 
Hence the absence of all explanation or re- 
striction as to its use or meaning. It passed 



292 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

over to its new relation, taking up in the 
transition but little that was not already in it. 
As it had ever pointed to a moral cleansing 
of the soul by the Holy Spirit, so it ever 
must. It has no other meaning. All the 
watery ablutions of the law pointed to the 
work of the Spirit of God in the soul; and 
most of them are known to have been by 
sprinkling. And all the prophetic representa- 
tions of the moral purifications under the 
Messiah's reign, are descriptions of the sprink- 
ling of water. All the metaphorical declara- 
tions of the work of the Holy Spirit, under 
the Old Testament and the New, point to the 
descent, the falling, the outpouring, of the 
Spirit; and whenever, in type, or prophecy, 
or promise, the work of the Holy Spirit is 
represented by water, it is by the sprinkling 
of water, or by its pouring out as in rain. 
And never once is immersion, in type, or 
prophecy, or promise, in the Old Testament 
or the New, made a symbol or emblem of the 
work of the Spirit. This is a most significant 
fact, which can not be accidental. It has a 
meaning which harmonizes delightfully with 
the view of baptism which we advocate, and 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 293 

which arrays itself in the most positive antag- 
onism to the immersion hypothesis. 

John's baptism, like all the baptisms of 
the Jews, foreshadowed the outpouring of the 
Holy Spirit. This is his meaning when he 
says: "I indeed baptize you w r ith water unto 
repentance: but he that cometh after me is 
mightier than I, whose shoes I am not wor- 
thy to bear: he shall baptize you with the 
Holy Ghost, and with fire." Look at it: 
"I baptize," "he shall baptize;" "I baptize 
with ivater" "he shall baptize with the Holy 
Ghost" Can there be any difference in the 
mode? There surely can not be, so far as 
the language is concerned. Then which is 
the real baptism? Evidently, that which 
the "mightier" shall administer. And which 
baptism shall determine the mode? Evi- 
dently, the real baptism; and the emblem- 
atic, the outward, the baptism with water, 
must take its form from that. 

And this brings us to the vital question, 
What is the mode of that baptism \tfhich 
Christ administers when he baptizes with the 
Holy Ghost and with fire? We are obliged 
to be cautious when we speak of the mode 



294 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

of the Spirit's work. In reality, we can not 
comprehend it; but then God condescends to 
represent to us the manner of his operations 
by metaphors and symbols, so that in our 
conceptions of his work we are permitted to 
give it form and method. Perhaps this is 
necessary to distinctness; and there may be a 
broader basis for the doctrine of correspond- 
ences in the relations of the natural and spir- 
itual, in God's great universe, than we now 
suspect; but, however real or however unreal 
in fact the analogy between the water and 
the Spirit may be in regard to mode, the 
represented analogy is to us real, and the 
terms employed in the representation are to 
have the same force and meaning as if the 
mode of the Spirit were as literally expressed 
and as readily comprehended as is the case 
with the water. In other words, when the 
inspired writer says the Spirit is "poured," 
the word "pour" has the same meaning as 
when it is said that water is poured. We are 
not to go beyond the represented analogy to 
ascertain the basis of the comparison, or to 
discover the actual motion of the Spirit, be- 
fore we conceive of the action of the Spirit 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 295 

as expressed by the word. Such mental 
effort is neither required nor possible. It is 
enough that the writer assumes a sufficient 
basis in the nature of things, and applies to 
the Spirit the word which conveys a definite 
idea of mode when applied to water. That 
same idea of mode, whether absolutely or 
philosophically correct or not, is to be ac- 
cepted as the idea which the writer intended 
us to receive; and it is the only idea that is 
either possible or lawful for us to receive. 
Hence w r e are bound to accept the statement 
that the Spirit was poured, as conveying to 
us as distinct an idea of mode as if it were 
said the water was poured. The word pour 
has precisely the same force in either in- 
stance. It may be that all allusion to the 
mode of the Spirit is figurative; that there is 
no positive basis for any comparison between 
the pouring of water and the pouring of the 
Spirit; that the idea of mode attached to the 
Spirit by the word pour comes entirely from 
the water, and that the water is made the 
emblem of the Spirit arbitrarily, and inde- 
pendent of all actual resemblance; still, even 
in that case, the word pour relates to mode, 



296 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

and expresses mode, and proves beyond all 
question the mode of the use of the water, 
as positively as if the resemblance between 
the water ancf the Spirit w T ere real, and actu- 
ally demonstrable. 

That the word pour is applied to the 
Spirit, is not a question. The Scriptures 
abound with proofs and illustrations. But 
does the word pour express the action of 
the Spirit in the baptism of the Spirit? If it 
does, it expresses the mode of the Spirit's 
baptism, and therefore what should be the 
mode of the emblematic baptism, as posi- 
tively as if it were applied directly to the 
action of the water in the external rite. We 
come, then, to the turning-point in the argu- 
ment, and find the testimony overwhelmingly 
in favor of the pouring. The statement is 
brief. It is that the same specific action of the 
Spirit is called a baptism and a pouring out. 
The word baptize is in the promise, and the 
word pour is in the fulfillment; and these an- 
swer the one to the other, so as to affirm the 
baptism to be by pouring. "He shall bap- 
tize you with the Holy Ghost, and w T ith fire." 
This is the promise as made by John the 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 297 

Baptist; but we have it in the Savior's own 
words (Acts i, 5): "For John truly baptized 
with water; but ye shall be baptized with the 
Holy Ghost not many days hence." Thus 
the promise. The fulfillment was on the day 
of Pentecost. The disciples were all assem- 
bled, waiting the promise, and praying for its 
fulfillment. Suddenly the power came, and 
"they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, 
and began to speak with other tongues, as 
the Spirit gave them utterance." When the 
excitement ensued, and they were charged 
with drunkenness, Peter repelled the charge, 
and explained by claiming that the prophecy 
of Joel was fulfilled, thus: "But this is that 
which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And 
it shall come to pass in the last days, saith 
God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all 
flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall 
prophesy, and your young men shall see vis- 
ions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 
and on my servants and on my handmaidens 
I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; 
and they shall prophesy." (Acts ii, 16-18.) 
The fact is not to be disputed that the pour- 
ing of the Spirit, as here described, fulfilled 



298 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

the promise of baptism by the Spirit. I do 
not say that the word pour, as applied to the 
Spirit, means all that baptize means in the 
promise. That is not the point. Baptize is 
generic, and pour is specific; but the action 
of the Spirit, whose mode is expressed by 
pour, is the identical action contemplated in 
the promise of a baptism. It is a baptism 
by pouring, as certainly as there is meaning 
in words. 

Such a fact as this, so utterly confounding 
to the teaching of the exclusive immersion- 
ists, could not be suffered to stand without 
an effort to break its force. It is claimed 
that the apostles were so overwhelmed with 
the Spirit as to be immersed in it. They 
were doubtless overwhelmed with its power 
and influence, for a time ; but they were filled 
with it — it took possession of their souls. 
But this does not indicate the mode. That 
is expressed by the word "pour," and by 
nothing else. Impressed with this view of 
the matter, and yet determined to find im- 
mersion here because baptism is certainly 
here, some have invented an exposition that 
secures an immersion by pouring. They tell 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 299 

us that the Spirit was poured out so copi- 
ously that it filled all the room where the 
apostles were sitting, and that, consequently, 
they were immersed in the Spirit, as we are 
immersed in the atmosphere that surrounds 
us and fills the rooms we occupy. This is 
crude, and materialistic in conception, and, 
unfortunately for the theory, it is without 
favor in the record. There is nothing said 
about the room being* filled by the Spirit. 
The statement is that "suddenly there came 
a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty 
wind, and it filled all the house where they 
were sitting." This "sound" preceded the 
coming of the Spirit, and heralded the fulfill- 
ment of the promise; but it was not the 
Spirit. If the apostles were immersed in 
that which filled the house, they were im- 
mersed in the "sound;" and I do not know 
but we might admit this, as there is nothing 
said about a baptism of "sound!" and pos- 
sibly we could afford to leave to the immer- 
sionist both the noise and the wind. But, 
really, the effort to make an immersion out 
of this baptism of the Spirit must prove a 
hopeless task. 



300 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

There are other allusions to the gift of the 
Spirit, that indicate the mode of baptism. 
When Peter opened the door of the kingdom! 
to Gentiles in Cesarea, in the house of Cor- 
nelius, it is said: "While he yet spake these 
words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which 
heard the word: And they of the circum- 
cision which believed were astonished, as 
many as came with Peter, because that on 
the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of 
the Holy Ghost." (Acts x, 44, 45.) The 
two words, "fell" and "poured," agree well 
together, and each expresses the mode of the 
baptism, if this was a baptism ; and that it 
was, is seen in Peter's account of it, when he 
returned to Jerusalem and rehearsed the 
matter in the presence of the apostles and 
brethren. His words are: "And as I began 
to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on 
its at the beginning. Then remembered I the 
word of the Lord, how that he said, John 
indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be 
baptized with the Holy Ghost." (Acts xi, 
15, 16.) The reference to the gift of the 
Spirit, when it "fell on us at the beginning," 
not only fixes the mode of the baptism on 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 30 1 

the day of Pentecost, but settles the point 
that this gift of the Spirit to the Gentiles 
was also a baptism. These persons were 
baptized with the Holy Ghost when it 
fell upon them. This is confirmed beyond 
doubt by the subsequent language: "Then 
remembered I the word of the Lord, how 
that he said, John indeed baptized with wa- 
ter; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost." If this does not mean that they 
w r ere baptized with the Holy Ghost, when it 
was poured out, and fell upon them, then 
indeed it must be true that words are em- 
ployed to conceal ideas, rather than to convey 
them. I know that it is said that these 
words which express mode, such as "fell," 
"poured," and other expressions, as "shed 
forth," "shed on us," and the like, can only 
be applied to the Spirit figuratively, or by 
way of metaphor; but suppose we agree to 
this, what then? We have already spoken 
on this point; but we turn to it again. If 
these words contain a metaphor, or are ap- 
plied to the Spirit only figuratively, the 
same is true of the word baptize; and it 
is true, also, that the figure employed or 



302 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

implied has a basis somewhere, and that can 
only be in the emblem that represents the 
Spirit's action; that is, the water as used in 
baptism. If this be true, and we shall not 
dispute it, then the argument for the mode is 
quite as strong as when real mode is as- 
signed to the work of the Spirit, if not even 
stronger. In this case, it is said to be bap- 
tism, because the water symbol is baptism; 
and it is said to be " poured," because the 
water that represents it is " poured;" and it 
is said to "fall" on the people, because the 
water of baptism "falls" on the people. 
Thus the mode of the baptism is determined, 
and put beyond the reach of argument, in 
any view that can be taken. 

But we must not forget that there was a 
double baptism on the day of Pentecost. In 
the promise of the baptism with the Holy 
Ghost, "fire" was mentioned, and we find 
the "fire" also in the fulfillment. "He shall 
baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and zvith 
fire." How were they baptized with "fire?" 
This promise is so coupled with the promise 
of the Spirit that we look for the fulfillment 
together. And so we find it. The record is 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 3C3 

that the fire followed the sound that filled 
the house. "And there appeared unto them 
cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon 
each of them." If this did not fill the 
promise to baptize with fire, that promise 
was never filled; but if it did, here is a bap- 
tism without immersion. The apostles were 
baptized with fire when it sat upon them, in 
the semblance of cloven or double tongues 
of flame. As water is the standing emblem 
or symbol of the Spirit in its gracious work 
in the soul, so the visible tongues of fire, on 
that memorable occasion, appeared as the 
symbol of the Spirit in its miracle-working 
power; and as this extraordinary gift of mir- 
acles is not continued, and was not to be 
permanent, so the fire symbol was not con- 
tinued. But a general discussion of this 
matter is not required. I leave the plain, 
unimpeachable, and unanswerable fact before 
you, that the apostles were baptized "with 
fire," when their bodies were not enveloped, 
but when it sat upon them. 

Good men, when cramped, will sometimes 
do strange things. A few immersionists, 
finding the stubborn fact of this fire-baptism 



304 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

confronting them, have assumed that the 
Baptist addressed two classes, the good and 
the bad, and meant the baptism of the Spirit 
for one class, and the baptism of fire for the 
other — making it mean the unquenchable fire 
of hell ! To mention so preposterous a thing 
is to refute it. The promise in full is made 
to the same persons: "He shall baptize you 
with the Holy Ghost, and with fire;" and the 
same persons experienced the fulfillment at 
Pentecost. I only mention this to show the 
lengths to which prejudice will push men. 

We have reached a point where we must 
look for little things. Occasionally we en- 
counter the remark: "If all you say is true, 
you have two modes of baptism, at the least. 
You have shown that the baptisms under the 
law were by ' sprinkling, ' and that these rep- 
resented the work of the Spirit; and now 
you find the same work of the Spirit repre- 
sented by ' pouring. ' How is this?" Well, 
all this is true; the Scriptures contain it all. 
But then there is nothing shockingly para- 
doxical in it. All the expressions applied to 
the Spirit may be used of the water in bap- 
tism. It was "poured," it "fell," it was 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 305 

"shed forth," it was "shed on us." All this 
may be said of rain. It was "poured out," 
it "fell," it was "shed forth," "shed on us," 
etc. ; and the descent of the Spirit is often 
compared to the descent of rain, in its com- 
ing and in its effects; and yet there is no 
impropriety in saying we are sprinkled by 
the falling rain. The result is, there is no 
substantial difference between pouring and 
sprinkling. They are not different — certainly 
not conflicting — modes of baptism, and both 
are Scriptural. The w r ater, applied to the 
person more or less copiously, all else being 
right, will constitute Scriptural baptism. 

We now come back to the fact that im- 
mersion is not commanded. Certainly it is 
not, unless the word baptize contains the idea 
so distinctly and exclusively that it means im- 
merse and nothing else. But we have seen 
that it does not. It is a generic term, and 
can not be restricted to mere mode; and, if 
generic, it does not express mode at all, any 
more than does "wet," "wash," "stain," 
"dye," or any number of such words. Bible 
use sustains this position, as we have seen; 
and classic usage sustains it; and so do all 

20 



306 christian baptism. 

the authorities, when rightly understood and 
applied. There is no specific term in the 
English language that is an exact equivalent 
of the Greek word, not one that will express 
and exhaust its meaning. If the Savior had 
wanted a specific term to express the mode, 
as he would have done if he had intended to 
command the apostles to immerse the people, 
he could easily have found one. If he had 
used kataduo or katapontizo, there would have 
been no doubt about his meaning; but he 
passed by specific words of this class, that 
express the idea of going down under the 
water specifically, and adopted the generic 
word, which the Jews used to describe, in 
a general way, all their religious washings, 
without regard to mode, while, in point of 
fact, the most of them were by sprinkling. 
This is an overwhelming argument against all 
exclusiveness in this matter. 

Immersion is not necessary to meet the 
spiritual import of baptism. Baptism rep- 
resents the moral cleansing of the soul by 
the agency of the Holy Spirit. This moral 
cleansing is all represented by the use of 
water, but always by pouring or sprinkling. 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 307 

Let us read a few examples : "I will pour 
water upon him that is thirsty, and floods 
upon the dry ground: I will pour my Spirit 
upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine 
offspring." (Isaiah xliv, 3.) "For it is time 
to seek the Lord, till he come and rain right- 
eousness upon you." (Hosea x, J2.) "He 
shall come down like rain upon the mown 
grass." (Psalm lxxii, 6.) "Then will I 
sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall 
be clean: from all your filthiness, and from 
all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new 
heart also will I give you, and a new spirit 
will I put within you : and I will take away 
the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will 
give you a heart of flesh. And I will put 
my Spirit within you, and cause you to 
walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my 
judgments, and do them." (Ezekiel xxxvi, 
25-27.) "His visage was so marred more 
than any man, and his form more than the 
sons of men : so shall he sprinkle many na- 
tions, " etc. (Isaiah lii, 14, 15.) Some of 
these relate to the moral cleansing, and some 
to the comforting, refreshing, and renewing 
power of the Holy Spirit; but, in every 



308 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

instance the work of the Spirit is represented 
by water, and always without the slightest 
allusion to immersion. The effect of the 
Spirit's work is sometimes called "washing/' 
but not so as to include or imply immersion. 
" Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, 
and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Purge 
me with hyssop, and I shall be clean ; wash 
me, and I shall be whiter than snow." (Psalm 
li, 2-7.) "Wash you, make you clean; put 
away the evil of your doings." (Isaiah i, 16.) 
In the New Testament, this moral cleansing 
is called ' ' the washing of regeneration, and 
the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he 
shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ." 
(Titus iii, 5, 6.) When the cleansing is by 
blood, it is by the sprinkling of blood ; when 
it is by the ashes of the burnt-offering, it is 
by the sprinkling of the ashes; and when it 
is by water, it is by the pouring or sprinkling 
of water. Now, if the moral cleansing, which 
is figuratively set forth in so many ways, and 
always by pouring or sprinkling, is repre- 
sented in the ordinance of baptism, is it not 
sufficient that the water be used, in this em- 
blematic washing, as it always was used in 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 309 

other emblematic representations of precisely 
the same thing? So it seems to me, and so 
it must appear still more strikingly, when we 
find similar words, as "pour," "fall," "shed," 
applied directly to the action of the Spirit, 
which effects the cleansing, and which is 
itself a baptism. 

Immersion is not universally practicable. 
The Gospel is intended for "all the world" — 
for "every creature." It is therefore adapted 
to every clime and every condition in life, 
and all its appointments should be applicable 
to all. But there are large sections of coun- 
try, inhabited by multitudes of human beings, 
where immersion is impracticable for a large 
portion of the year. In those countries 
where brandy and mercury freeze in Winter; 
where the people crowd together in huts, and 
stop the openings with ice; where they pro- 
cure water for necessary uses by melting 
snow and ice; where nearly all streams and 
lakes freeze to the bottom, immersion would 
be exceedingly difficult and burdensome, if 
at all practicable. In case of the sick, every 
one knows that immersion is often out of the 
question. Instances of persons in feeble 



310 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

health getting their death by exposure in 
being immersed, are not infrequent. Many 
were impressed, during the late war, with the 
awkwardness of immersionists in the chap- 
laincy. They were called to minister to the 
sick and dying, to the maimed and wounded, 
where immersion was impossible. This awk- 
wardness was increased to inexpressible em- 
barrassment with some, who taught that im- 
mersion was a condition of forgiveness, and 
the act of induction into Christ. But any 
one visiting the hospitals of a great army can 
see the impossibility of insisting on such a 
rite. These difficulties are real. I know 
they are treated lightly, and laughed at as 
trifling; but this does not remove them. 
The argument is, that either God has en- 
joined a duty to be perpetually and univer- 
sally binding, which, for a large portion of 
the year, is impracticable, burdensome, or 
dangerous for millions of the race, or else he 
has not enjoined immersion as the exclusive 
mode of baptism. The Gospel comes to all, 
in every age, in every condition, in the polar 
^snows or the burning sands, in arid wastes or 
mountain fastnesses, in palace or hospital, in 



SPIRIT BAPTISM. 31I 

the air of freedom or within prison walls; 
and it comes with all its comforts and helps, 
and in perfect adaptation to all. But, tested 
by this rule, exclusive immersion is another 
system. 



THE END. 



6M 



ii 



